We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
22Senate Resolution 641: Recognizing Girl Scouts of the United States of America on Its 114th Birthday and Celebrating Its Legacy of Providing Girls With a Supportive and Inclusive Space Where They...
Twenty-nine bills and four resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 4068-4096, S.J. Res. 124, and S. Res. 640- 642.
Pages S1046-47
Measures Reported
S. 2563, to direct the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, to conduct an interagency review of and report to Congress on ways to increase the global competitiveness of the United States in attracting foreign direct investment, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. (S. Rept. No. 119-116)
Page S1046
Measures Passed
Housing for the 21st Century Act: By 89 yeas to 10 nays (Vote No. 53), Senate passed H.R. 6644, to increase the supply of housing in America, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute.
Pages S1018-24
YMCA 175th anniversary
Senate agreed to S. Res. 642, celebrating the 175th anniversary of the Young Men's Christian Association (YMCA).
Page S1051
Measures Considered
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act: Senate resumed consideration of the motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 7147, making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026.
Pages S1024-34
During consideration of this measure today, Senate also took the following action
By 51 yeas to 46 nays (Vote No. 54), three-fifths of those Senators duly chosen and sworn, not having voted in the affirmative, Senate rejected the motion to close further debate on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill.
Page S1034
Senator Thune entered a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. St.
Page S1034
John Nomination: Cloture
Senate began consideration of the nomination of Anna St. John, of Louisiana, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Pages S1034-39
A motion was entered to close further debate on the nomination, and, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and pursuant to the unanimous-consent agreement of Thursday, March 12, 2026, a vote on cloture will occur at 5:30 p.m., on Monday, March 16, 2026.
Page S1034
Prior to the consideration of this nomination, Senate took the following action
Senate agreed to the motion to proceed to Executive Session to consider the nomination.
Page S1034
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing that at approximately 3 p.m., on Monday, March 16, 2026, Senate resume consideration of the nomination; and that the cloture motion with respect to the nomination ripen at 5:30 p.m.
Page S1051
Nominations Received
Senate received the following nominations: Sarah B. Rogers, of New York, to be Chief Executive Officer of the United States Agency for Global Media. 1 Army nomination in the rank of general.
Page S1052
Nominations Withdrawn
Senate received notification of withdrawal of the following nominations: Jeremy Carl, of Montana, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Organizations), which was sent to the Senate on January 13, 2026. William Hewes III, of Mississippi, to be a Commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission for a term of seven years from October 27, 2024, which was sent to the Senate on January 13, 2026.
Page S1052
Statements on Introduced Bills/Resolutions:
Pages S1048-51
Record Votes
Two record votes were taken today. (Total--54)
Pages S1024, S1034
Adjournment
Senate convened at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 4:24 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Monday, March 16, 2026. (For Senate's program, see the remarks of the Acting Majority Leader in today's Record on pages S1051- 52.)
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 75 of 176 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Legislative Session
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 6644, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. President, I would like to again remind my colleagues and the Nation about this significant day in the history of the Senate. Of course, America's 250th celebration gives us a special opportunity to reflect on events and on the people who made a mark on our Nation's history. That, of course, would include more than 2,000 Americans who have served in the U.S. Senate since it first met on March 4, 1789.
On another occasion, on this very day 67 years ago, 2 very distinguished Members of this body presided at a special ceremony in the Senate Reception Room. That Senate Reception Room is the beautiful space located just off the floor of this historic Chamber. So, on March 12, 1959, then-Senator John F. Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson unveiled the portraits of the five Senators who were unanimously chosen for their ``statesmanship'' and ``leadership in national thought and constitutional interpretation.'' These five Senators are known as the Famous Five: Henry Clay of Kentucky, Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Robert La Follette, Sr., of Wisconsin, and Robert Taft of Ohio.
In the year 2000, which would have been 41 years after the first portraits were unveiled, another historic review took place. The U.S. Senate approved two former Senators to join the ``Famous Five.'' So, on September 14, 2004, the portraits of Senators Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan and Robert Wagner of New York were unveiled.
I am giving you this history. All I can do is encourage Americans to study these Senators who made a mark on U.S. history from just before the Civil War through the Cold War to make America the more perfect Union that the Constitution's preamble calls on us to do--evolve into a more perfect Union--obviously, expressing, in 1789, that they knew we were not a perfect Union and that it were to be always an evolving principle for the United States of America.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, later today, we will finish up the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the latest piece of legislation in Republican's affordability agenda. And next week, I will be bringing the SAVE America Act to the floor, and we will be having a full and robust debate.
So what is the SAVE America Act? It is a package of commonsense policies--the kind of commonsense policies that should get an automatic ``yes'' vote from literally every Member of this body.
At the core of the SAVE America Act is the requirement that individuals provide proof of citizenship to register to vote and then show an ID when they go to the polls. In other words, it would require Americans to demonstrate that they are eligible to vote and that they are who they say they are when they go to do so.
Not to keep using the word ``commonsense,'' but it is pretty commonsense, right? We require a photo ID for a whole lot of things in this country, for obvious reasons.
Getting on a plane? Show your official government-issued photo ID.
Go to the doctor? The same thing, provide your government-issued photo ID plus your insurance card.
Get hired for a new job? Provide your government-issued photo ID when you start.
Public libraries ask for a photo ID. In New York City you have to provide some type of photo ID to get a library card. In Baltimore, MD, it is the same thing; in Washington, DC, again, photo ID.
I will stop with the list of libraries, but I think we can all agree that if you have to show photo ID and prove where you live to get a library card, it is not too much to ask voters to show ID to vote in Federal elections. It takes about 10 seconds and protects the security of our elections.
Americans overwhelmingly agree that voters should have to show ID at the polls. Eighty-three percent of Americans--83 percent--in an August 2025 poll supported requiring photo ID at the polls for all voters. That includes 71 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Black Americans, 77 percent of Asian Americans, and 82 percent of Hispanic Americans.
It kind of feels like the only Americans not to support voter ID requirements are Democrats here in Congress. That is right. We are expecting continued, full-throated opposition to voter ID and the SAVE America Act from Senate Democrats, as well as more of the unforgiveable rhetoric that Democrats have already been engaging in.
The Democrat leader has been calling this bill ``Jim Crow 2.0,'' a phrase that is not only deeply irresponsible and insulting for those who actually lived through that dark chapter in our history but also insults the overwhelming majority of Americans, including minorities, who look at voter ID and see nothing more than commonsense.
In fact, I can really see only two reasons for Democrats opposing this legislation: Either Democrats are just reflexively opposing this proposal because it originated from Republicans, or Democrats believe that there are, in fact, people out there voting illegally; and that it is benefiting Democrats, and they want to keep it going.
I honestly cannot think of another reason to oppose something so eminently reasonable as requiring people to demonstrate that they are eligible to vote and that they are who they say they are when they go to the polls.
Now, I will have a lot more to say about the SAVE America Act next week, including about two other commonsense measures in the bill that would prevent biological males from competing in women's sports and protect minors from gender transition procedures--two other things, I should note, that are supported by the American people.
I can't guarantee an outcome on this legislation, but I can guarantee that we are going to put Democrats on the record and that they will be forced to defend their outrageous positions on these issues and explain to the American people why common sense and the Democratic Party have parted ways.
Republicans are looking forward to this debate, and I look forward to saying much more about the SAVE America Act in the very near future.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant executive clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. President, yesterday, for the second time in less than a week, Republicans were given the opportunity to fund TSA and to also fund FEMA, to stand up for our Coast Guard, and to make sure core DHS operations are funded while negotiations on ICE and Border Patrol continue. And for the second time in less than a week, Republicans said no. Well, we are giving them another opportunity later this morning-- another opportunity to end their blockade of TSA. We are giving Republicans the opportunity to end their blockade of FEMA. We are giving Republicans the opportunity to end their blockade at CISA and to end their blockade at Coast Guard and much else.
The bottom line is very simple. It is easy. You don't have to follow politics very closely to see it. Democrats are ready to fund TSA; Republicans are blocking it. Democrats are ready to fund CISA; Republicans are blocking it. Democrats are ready to fund FEMA and Coast Guard and most of DHS operations. We will give Republicans a chance--a chance--to say yes.
We all know that we do not have agreement on how to deal with ICE. We know, very simply, that Democrats just want ICE to behave like any police department in America and use warrants and not wear masks, but we don't have to tie that disagreement up and use people at the airports and American citizens as hostages and say: We are not going to fund FEMA; we are not going to fund TSA unless you give in to our unreasonable and unpopular demands on reforming ICE. So we are going to offer these bills one at a time and see where our Republican colleagues go.
We know the American people are on our side. We know that the only thing Republicans need to do is stay out of the way and these programs will be funded today and problems at the airports will go away.
So I assume the Democrat leader is aware of the fact that we have tried repeatedly to fund everything temporarily to allow the negotiations over the ICE budget to continue.
The bottom line is, Democrats are ready today. America, watch. We will have Members on the floor saying ``Let's fund TSA'' with no other preconditions. What will Republicans do? They are going to see Republicans get up and block it. It is that simple.
Now, my friend--sometimes--much of the time.
My friend, the Republican leader, says: Well, we will only do it if you go along with what we want on ICE and what we want on Border Patrol--highly unpopular and wrong. So who is standing in the way, America? Look at it. We are not putting any preconditions on funding TSA. The Republicans are. And why?
Why? Because Republicans are in obeisance to Donald Trump's insistence on having these marauding forces of ICE go through our cities. We saw what they did in Minneapolis. We saw what
And so it is simple: Don't attach preconditions, fund TSA, fund CISA. You will have that opportunity in a few hours. And if you get up and block it and say ``We will only do it unless,'' Americans will know who is to blame.
Well, I would say again to the Democrat leader that the Democrats have had multiple opportunities--and will have another one today--to provide funding for all of the Agencies that he just mentioned, under a continuing resolution, to allow us to consider how we are going to resolve the DHS issues that the Democrat leader has raised, which are being negotiated, I might add, at the moment between Democrats and Republicans and the White House. So there will be an attempt. The Democrats will have an opportunity to block--because they have now repeatedly--a continuing resolution that would fund all the Agencies to which you just alluded and allow us more time to negotiate.
Will he support, without any Republican blocking it, a straight motion to just deal with TSA and get it funded while we are trying to work out these negotiations? Will he support that? No ands, ifs, or buts; no preconditions, no keep negotiating on ICE but just get it done. Will he support that?
I would support a resolution, which will be offered, to fund not just TSA but Coast Guard; Cybersecurity, CISA; FEMA; other Agencies and Departments of our government that are essential not only to national security and homeland security but to making sure that people can move through our airports in this country, that the FEMA-- Federal Emergency Management Agency--has the ability to respond to disasters. Those are things, I would say to my friend the Democrat leader, that could all be funded today, and then we can continue this discussion that he wants to have, which, again, there have been offers made repeatedly, the most recent of which was about 13 days ago, I think, from the White House, and the Democrats have yet to respond.
Reclaiming my time. I rest my case. What the leader is saying is he will only fund TSA if we will continue to fund--for a short time, for a long time--ICE and Border Patrol, which he knows is gridlocked, which he knows we don't agree with, and so it is clear. He has made it clear.
Just fund TSA. That is it. He has a lot of rigamarole attached to funding TSA: but do this, but do that, but do this.
You can't win the argument, Leader. It is simple. We are being clear. We are being concise.
So the question is very simple. I say to my Republican friends: Support the legislation that is coming on the floor today. And if you do, TSA is funded like that. Every Democrat is for it. My guess is, half to three quarters of the Republicans are wishing they would be for it, but their leadership is insisting on attaching preconditions on ICE negotiations and Border Patrol negotiations.
So all I say to my Republican colleagues: Stop the speeches that you care about TSA. Don't talk the talk. Walk the walk. Let the legislation that we are proposing go forward without blocking it, and TSA will be back to work; our lines at the airports will be gone; and then we will have legislation on CISA.
Don't talk to us about the need for safety and then block legislation that allows CISA to go through. That is hypocrisy. Just let it go through. And I know that our Republican leadership knows that we have the high ground here, knows that the people are on our side.
And why do Republicans do this? Why won't they budge to give an inch on ICE, which is highly unpopular, and even the President has said hasn't done things right? That is the mystery, but it is probably because some in the rightwing insist. And we know that the hard right runs this party, and that is why they are doing so poorly with the American people right now. That is why we Democrats are on the ascent-- because we are with the American people and the American people say: Fund TSA now, and you can debate ICE.
There has been a debate on ICE. We believe we are right. We believe something as simple as warrants should be used by ICE when you bust into someone's house. We believe, simply, that ICE agents should not be masked when every police department and sheriff's department is identified, and the American people are with us.
But we don't even have to debate that today because what Republicans are doing is insisting that we don't change a thing about ICE before we move forward on TSA. That is wrong. That is using the American people as hostages. And we are not going to do it.
And I remind my Republican colleagues, we are going to be back here again and again, winning this debate and eventually winning the American people, which will say to you folks on the Republican side: You had better stop this blockade of TSA and CISA, of FEMA, and of the Coast Guard. You had better stop using them as hostages until you get your way on ICE and on CBP, where you are out of touch with the American people.
I yield the floor.
Oh, no, I don't yield the floor. I have a few other subjects I might like to touch on. There is so much to talk about. Donald Trump and the Republicans are screwing up America in so many ways. So let's talk about Iran for a minute.
Mr. President, as the war on Iran continues, Donald Trump does what he usually does: He lies. He is lying to the American people.
According to public reporting, preliminary intelligence reports suggest, tragically, that American operations may have been involved, unfortunately, in this horrible missile strike on the all-girls elementary school in Iran on the first day of the war. And when Donald Trump was asked about those reports, what did he say? He said: Well, I don't know about that.
That is ridiculous, and it is an obvious lie. Donald Trump is the Commander in Chief, and he expects us to believe that he has no clue about intelligence regarding a horrific attack on a school several days after it occurred.
The vast majority of Americans, obviously, won't believe Donald Trump. They know he is an inveterate liar. He lies daily. They will know when he says he didn't know about this report--of course he did. But there might be a handful of Americans who still might believe the guy, who still don't understand that he is an inveterate liar.
And so think about that. He is saying he has zero clue about a basic intelligence report regarding this strike. If he didn't know about it 2 or 3 days later, when all of America did, and he is not lying, which I believe he is, then what chaos--what is going on in this administration? The Commander in Chief, on something that affects policy while we are at war, says he doesn't know about it? That talks about the chaos and confusion that have taken over this administration--the idea that something is all jumbled up in the White House, that there is no information flow to the President on something so important.
So either Donald Trump is lying when he says he knows nothing about the school bombing intelligence findings--he gets these reports every day--or he is dangerously uninformed, which says his staff is really screwed up.
Equally unacceptable is Donald Trump's apparent miscalculation when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz. In the early days of this war, Donald Trump bragged that victory would come easily. ``We are going to win shortly. No time. No problem.'' But now, after the United States has damaged so much of Iran's infrastructure, the new radical Supreme Leader is focusing on the one point of leverage Iran has always had over the world's economy: the Strait of Hormuz.
A few moments ago, in his first public comments, the Supreme Leader Khamenei, who is even worse than his predecessor, his father, said Iran will continue to block the Strait of Hormuz. Freeing it could, potentially, America, require boots on the ground.
How did Donald Trump not see this coming? How did his planners not see
After I said for days that he should, Donald Trump finally announced that he is tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He should have done it sooner. But in any case, even this decision was marred by chaos and confusion. It caught our allies completely off guard because for days it seemed Trump would hold back.
There is such disorganization and chaos when we are in a war. We can't afford chaos in a war. I don't know of any other time America went to war and things were so chaotic.
There is not a single strategic decision that Trump has made in this war that was not born from chaos, confusion, misinformation, and lies. And there is nobody--nobody--up there in the White House around him willing to stand up and tell him when he was wrong. In his first term, Trump had Kelly, Trump had Mattis--people who had courage, who had backbones, who had military backgrounds--and they told him the truth. He eventually fired them for telling the truth, but they told him the truth.
Where is the truth teller now? No one is there, and America is paying the price, unfortunately, in lives, in the eight brave troops we lost, in fortune--they said the first 2 days or the first week of the war cost $11 billion; we could fix a lot of healthcare with that $11 billion--and in strength.
This has gone too far, with too much chaos, too little thought, and it is hurting America.
Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning having just listened to the minority leader talk about the Department of Homeland Security, which the Democrats once again refused to fund.
How can the minority leader from New York have forgotten about why we have a Department of Homeland Security in the first place? It was set up after 9/11, after the Twin Towers were hit, so that it could never happen again. Yet to sit here and listen to him talk about this component of it or that component--this was a program fundamentally set in place to protect our Nation and our citizens from the terror that was rained upon us on 9/11. That is why the entire Department was brought together and funded. Now we hear the minority leader--well, he wants to peel off this part and that part and take the Department apart as we are trying to protect the country.
He said something about what the American people are wondering. What the American people are wondering today is why the Democrat Party continues to stand up for illegal immigrant criminals against law- abiding citizens. That is what I hear about in Wyoming: Why in the world are Democrats wanting to stand up for illegal immigrant criminals and not hard-working American citizens?
So for the last 27 days, the Democrats have shut down the entire Department of Homeland Security lock, stock, and barrel. TSA agents are missing their paychecks. Our Nation's infrastructure is more vulnerable to cyber attacks. There have been two attacks by terrorist sympathizers in the last 2 weeks.
The minority leader--you listen to his comments--is completely out of touch with the American people and what people are worried about all across this country. And there they go again. Here we have it.
Less than 5 months ago, Democrats shut down the entire government. The government stayed shut for 43 days. Now we have gotten most of the government funded, but they continue to shut down the Department of Homeland Security for one reason and one reason only: because they want to protect illegal immigrant criminals. When you listen to what he is saying, when you listen to the comments by the minority leader, he wants to stand side by side with illegal immigrant criminals, not with the American people. Democrats want to defund law enforcement. They want to abolish ICE. They want to turn our Nation into a sanctuary nation.
Yesterday, once again, Democrats blocked Republican efforts to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. Now, the White House and Senate Republicans have made offer after offer. We negotiated in good faith. Democrats in the Senate have not.
What we are doing here is critical. It is critical to the safety and the security of our Nation. This is what we are doing: We are trying to fund America's Department of Homeland Security. When this was set up after the 9/11 attacks and the terrorism, what did they want to include in that? TSA, the Coast Guard, Secret Service, America's cyber defenses. It is the Department that stops smugglers, drug traffickers, human traffickers.
The Department of Homeland Security was created to protect us as a nation, and since 9/11 of 2001, this Department has been on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism and securing the border. That is the part the Democrats hate. They want an open border. They want people to come in indiscriminately from all around the world. And Joe Biden and the Democrats allowed it, with over 10 million illegal immigrants coming into this country in the 4 years of the Biden administration.
The people that work for the Department of Homeland Security--they are the silent heroes of the Nation. They are the ones engaged in the battle to keep our communities safe and secure. They shouldn't be forced to miss their paychecks because Democrats continue to choose to play politics. Right now, 50,000 TSA agents all around the country are missing their paychecks. For the third time in 6 months, Democrats have forced the TSA agents to work without getting paid.
A veteran TSA officer in Phoenix, AZ, was very clear. He said:
I believe he is right. All Americans are fed up and have had enough of this political posturing and gameplaying by the Democrats.
A CBS News report this week explains what is happening. Absences by TSA agents have doubled--doubled since February 14 when the Democrat- caused shutdown began. More than 300 TSA agents have left the job entirely, and lines at airports continue to grow. In some airports, the lines stretch out of the terminal and into the parking lot. Spring break travel is picking up all around the country. Families are paying the price. That is the price of Democrats' political obstruction.
It is the same and concerning story with regard to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. This is the Agency put in place after 9/11, under the Department of Homeland Security--the entire Department--that protects our Nation's critical infrastructure, and that includes our energy infrastructure.
Since the Democrat shutdown began last month, only one in three staffers at the Agency is working. Why? Because the others have been furloughed because of the Democrat-caused shutdown. And those who are still on the job are working without pay.
America is continually under attack in the cyber world--24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is energy, banking, financial institutions, water, utilities, and our military. After the strikes in Iran, the pace of cyber attacks against us accelerated. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps made their intentions clear. They said Americans ``will no longer have security anywhere in the world, even in their own homes.''
Imagine the damage that Iran could do if they hacked our critical infrastructure--because they are trying. But because of the Democrats' shutdown--and we just heard the minority leader talk about it. The shutdown is continuing, he is saying. Because of that, vulnerability scans are on pause. That shouldn't happen. We need to get these open and running. Protective guidance for our critical networks is not being issued. We need that.
Democrats don't seem to care because they want to protect illegal immigrant criminals, and we just heard it from the minority leader of the U.S. Senate, the Senator from New York, who ought to be more concerned than anybody about threats to our Nation. Our energy grids, our hospitals, our State and local governments--they are all more exposed.
It is not a question of if the Democrat shutdown is hurting the American people; it is a matter of public record. Democrats are each and every day endangering Americans on the ground, in the skies, and even in cyber space.
The American people expect their government to take our Nation's security seriously. Democrats don't seem to be thinking that way at all. The American people expect Congress to fund the Agencies that keep them safe, not that keep safe illegal immigrant criminals. And that is what we heard from the minority leader--what we could do differently to protect illegal immigrant criminals, not protect the American people.
The American people expect us to pay the people who protect us, who protect our airports, who protect our borders, who protect our networks, who protect our communities. That is what the American people want. They expect us to confront the threats at home and abroad and do it with urgency.
Mr. President, the Department of Homeland Security must be funded fully and immediately, and I am tired of excuses from the Democrats because that is all they are--excuses.
Mr. President, 12 days ago, Donald Trump took us to war against Iran. Since then, 7 American servicemembers have been killed, and 140 more have been wounded. Instead of protecting our troops, Trump is making it easier for enemies to kill them.
None of us are mourning Ayatollah Khamenei. The moment this war started, oil prices spiked. Anyone who has looked at a map knows that a war in the Middle East affects oil prices. It has happened every single time. But apparently no one at the White House looked at the map. So now, American families, who are already struggling to put food on the table, are paying 20 percent more for gas because of Trump's war.
The administration's response to the crisis they created is to back off sanctions on Russian oil. So American families are hurting while Trump is making more money for Vladimir Putin. The administration has given Russia a lifeline just as they needed it.
U.S. officials confirmed last week that Russia is sharing intelligence with Iran to help target U.S. servicemembers. Russia is telling Iran where our troops are and where the military assets are. Just think about that. Russia is giving Iran a map to find and kill Americans, and in our response, we are going to allow them to sell their oil to other countries to fund their war machines--all while Steve Witkoff, the President's envoy, is happy to take Putin, a professionally trained liar, at his word when he says they aren't sharing intel with Iran.
We started a war with Iran, and we are now rewarding the ones that are helping shoot us. How is this putting America first? How many times do we have to remind this President that Putin is not our friend?
This is what happens when the administration starts a war without a plan. They are scrambling to clean up their mess and thinking twice about the consequences.
I know the consequences because I have lived them. Twenty-one years ago, I was a Marine infantryman in the Al Anbar Province of Western Iraq. Every day, someone was trying to kill us. I lost a lot of best friends there. That is why I am standing together with you here today-- because I know what happens when we send soldiers into harm's way without thinking through what comes next and what we are asking these kids to do. And I know the people who pay for wars are never the politicians who started them; it is the American people, the kids from working-class neighborhoods who enlisted and their families.
What this administration did was not just wrong; it was illegal.
In 2017, Congress passed the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act--signed by Trump himself--requiring the White House to notify Congress before making any significant change to U.S. policy toward Russia. We passed a law because we understood that decisions of this magnitude--decisions that touch our national security and affect the safety of our troops--require transparency and accountability. They require someone to be able to look the American people in the eye and explain themselves.
But this administration did not notify Congress. Apparently, this administration doesn't think it owes anyone any explanation. They don't think they owe the troops they are putting in danger any explanation at all, and they don't think they owe the families of the seven Americans who are not coming home an explanation. They are making it up as they go and asking Americans to pay for it with their lives.
If this administration wants to bring gas prices down, stop the war.
Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of my resolution at the desk; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act--a bipartisan, bicameral effort to address one of the most pressing challenges facing families across the country: the cost and availability of housing.
Housing affordability is not just an issue in major metropolitan areas; it is a challenge in small towns, farming communities, and rural counties across America.
In my home State of South Dakota, communities are growing, but the housing supply has not kept pace with demand. Whether it is young families trying to purchase their first home or workers moving into our communities, the shortage of available housing is becoming a serious challenge.
I want to thank Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Warren for their leadership in bringing members together to incorporate priorities from both sides of the committee. Their efforts resulted in a strong consensus-driven package that addresses housing challenges in both rural and urban areas.
We will be voting final passage on that act yet this afternoon.
I am proud that several provisions I have authored are included in this legislation, each focused on cutting unnecessary redtape, modernizing outdated Federal programs, and giving State and local partners the flexibility they need to address housing challenges on the ground.
First, the bill includes the Rural Housing Service Reform Act that I introduced with Senator Smith from Minnesota. Senator Smith has been a great partner as we developed this legislation over the past several years, working together to address the unique housing challenges facing rural communities across the country.
This bill provides the first comprehensive update to USDA's rural housing programs in more than a decade. Across rural America, thousands of affordable housing units financed through USDA's Section 515 Program are reaching the end of their mortgage terms.
When these mortgages mature, the rental assistance, which is tied to them, often disappears. That means that rents can increase sharply or properties can leave the program entirely.
Without congressional action, up to 400,000 Americans nationwide could face rent increases or displacement as these mortgages mature. The impact will fall hardest on the Midwest and the south regions that serve as the backbone of American ag, manufacturing, and energy production. We are already seeing the effects.
Since 2016, more than 900 properties with over 20,000 units have left USDA's
In rural housing markets, once these units disappear, they are almost never replaced. Many rural counties already face vacancy rates below 1 percent, and in more than half of rural counties across the country, there is little or no new housing construction at all.
The Rural Housing Service Reform Act addresses this challenge directly. It allows rental assistance to be decoupled from expiring mortgages, preserving affordability for the families who rely on these homes. It also modernizes the USDA housing programs by allowing income calculations with HUD standards, streamlining loan approval and foreclosure processes, updating outdated information technology systems, and expanding eligibility for loan guarantees to include properties with a small additional home on the property and in-home daycare services.
These are practical reforms that strengthen the rural housing safety net while helping communities maintain a stable workforce and local economy.
The bill also incorporates two additional pieces of legislation I introduced with Senator Kim to streamline housing development to bring new units online faster.
The Unlocking Housing Supply Through Streamlined and Modernized Reviews Act modernizes the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act for HUD-funded housing projects.
And the BUILD Housing Act strengthens coordination between HUD and State and local units of government by expanding the ability of the local partners to participate in environmental review and developmental processes.
These reforms address a simple, but persistent problem: Too often housing projects face duplicative or overlapping review processes that delay construction without improving outcomes.
By aligning Federal standards and allowing greater collaboration with State and local partners, these provisions will help move housing projects forward more efficiently. We are cutting the redtape.
Taken together, these reforms represent a commonsense approach to housing policy. They do not rely on sweeping new Federal mandates. Instead, they focus on removing barriers, modernizing outdated systems, and empowering the communities closest to the problem.
For States like South Dakota, these changes matter. Housing shortages in rural communities can affect everything from workforce recruitment to economic development. Employers across the State--from schools to healthcare providers to ag businesses--regularly tell me that housing availability is one of the biggest obstacles to expanding their workforce and building their businesses.
When workers cannot find a place to live, communities struggle to grow and local economies suffer. The Housing for the 21st Century Act takes meaningful steps toward addressing these challenges.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and help put our Nation on a stronger path toward expanding housing opportunities for families in South Dakota and across the country.
Mr. President, it has now been 26 days since Homeland Security has been funded and 51 days since the Democrats have announced their intention not to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
The Democrats want the Department of Homeland Security to be closed. How do I know they want it to be closed? Well, it is because the Democrats are refusing even to talk to Republicans about what sort of deal we may be able to do to get the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
Just this past weekend, my freshman colleague from Alabama who sits on the Appropriations Committee and has the subcommittee that oversees the Department of Homeland Security offered the ranking Democrat on Appropriations a meeting, a meeting with our Republican leader, a meeting with the Appropriations chair--the esteemed Senator from Maine--and the White House. And the ranking Democrat refused to even meet, much less negotiate.
Republicans want the Department of Homeland Security opened. Democrats want to keep it shut down. Democrats are playing politics with our national security and the safety of Americans and people in my home State of Nebraska.
The Department of Homeland Security is funded to pay, for example, our Coast Guard. In recent days, our Coast Guard in the Gulf of America just intercepted a shipment of marijuana and cocaine worth about $1.3 million. That is what the Coast Guard does, keeps us safe from illegal drugs coming into our country, and yet they go unpaid.
In fact, a Nebraskan called in to my office. His son and daughter-in- law in the Coast Guard are deployed right now in Bahrain. They are risking their lives for us, they are risking their lives to keep us safe, and the Democrats won't pay them.
Or let's take your TSA agents that handle the security for a billion travelers in the United States every year. They, too, are working without pay because the Democrats will not fund the Department of Homeland Security. TSA agents process about 2\1/2\ million people every day going through our airports to keep us safe, and the Democrats won't pay them.
I stood here not long ago, sadly, talking about our air traffic controllers. I read letters from them and how the government shutdown that Chuck Schumer led the Democrats on just a short while ago put pressure on their families. Many of those air traffic controllers were veterans.
The minority leader led the Democrats on the longest shutdown in American history. Does nobody remember that, what it did to the families? And yet the Democrats are doing the same thing again now on the Department of Homeland Security.
The Agency that is assigned to keep us safe from the standpoint of cyber security--the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency--has furloughed 1,200 of their 2,000 people. Only 800 people are working right now, putting us at risk.
We have a conflict in the Middle East right now with Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, that country that regularly chants ``Death to America.'' We know that Iran has plotted assassinations of our President, other officials, and dissidents here on our very soil. And yet the Democrats are not willing to fund the Agency that is meant to help keep us safe. Again, they are playing politics with our national security and our safety.
There is common ground we can come to, to be able to get the Department of Homeland Security open. But if the Democrats refuse to even meet with Republicans to discuss this, the only conclusion I can draw is that they don't want the Department of Homeland Security open. And so they put all of us at risk, including my fellow Nebraskans.
Democrats must come to the table to meet. We must reopen the Department of Homeland Security. We must pay our heros in the Coast Guard, TSA, Secret Service, CISA, all these people who are working right now to keep us safe are keeping us safe during this conflict in the Middle East with the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
The least the Democrats can do is agree to meet with leadership and have a conversation.
Mr. President, the sweeping surveillance powers authorized under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, expire in just 40 days.
Section 702 grew out of a secret, warrantless surveillance program conducted by the Bush administration after 9/11. When this illegal spying program was finally discovered, Congress enacted 702 as a temporary measure--a temporary measure. Like so many expansive government powers that are adopted during times of emergency,
When it comes to collecting intelligence on foreigners located abroad, the value of this tool is not in serious dispute, but there is a fatal flaw at the core of section 702. This authority is also used for warrantless spying on innocent Americans. Americans' private emails, phone calls, and text messages with friends, family, colleagues, business, and any number of other contacts around the world are swept up under section 702. The government then searches these private communications--protected by the Fourth Amendment, I might add--without a warrant or other court order.
Congress has repeatedly failed to fix this end run around the Constitution. As a result, for years, the intelligence community has abused section 702 to spy on business and religious leaders, political parties, campaign donors, journalists, and protesters across the political spectrum.
In passing the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in April 2024, Congress codified new reforms intended to rein in these abuses. These measures have substantially reduced the number of unlawful searches.
But Congress failed to require a warrant for searching American communications--once again, leaving the fox guarding the henhouse.
At the same time, Congress greatly expanded 702 to include counternarcotics and immigration vetting, and conscripted a shocking array of American businesses into section 702 spying.
Congress has a responsibility to protect our national security and the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. That is why Senator Lee, Republican of Utah, and I have introduced the SAFE Act, a bipartisan bill that would reauthorize 702 with commonsense reforms to protect our privacy as individuals.
Our bill preserves the core values of 702 as a foreign intelligence collection tool, while preventing the government from using it to target the constitutionally protected communications of Americans, unless they get court approval.
Our warrant requirement takes legitimate operational and security needs into account so that it won't be unduly burdensome or impede any action in an emergency. There is an exception for emergencies.
What it would do is stop the government from accessing the private communications of Americans without a proper basis under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Such a simple requirement to comply with the Constitution should have been included in section 702 from the outset.
The SAFE Act would also prevent government Agencies--like ICE, Customs and Border Protection, and the FBI and others--from skirting the Fourth Amendment to obtain Americans' sensitive information and other personal details from data brokers.
ICE is using this data to track U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment right to protest, which should concern Senators on both sides of the aisle.
If the FBI wants to track someone's phone, obtain their location information, or access their Google search history, the Agency should be required to get a judicial warrant.
Instead, government Agencies are exploiting gaps in our outdated laws to buy our sensitive information from data brokers. It is a loophole that Congress must address. Our bill--my bill with Senator Lee--does that.
Once again, however, those who want to avoid real reforms are urging Congress to just reauthorize section 702 without addressing this issue.
When Congress extended 702 in 2024, the argument was that we needed more time. So Congress reauthorized section 702 for just 2 years to see how the existing compliance measures were working.
``Later,'' they said. ``We need more time. . . . Let's see how the reforms are working.''
Now, here we are, 2 years later, and the opponents of real reform are saying exactly the same thing: Just give us more time.
We have been hearing these same excuses for over 20 years. It is time to stop avoiding the issue and to protect Americans' constitutional rights once and for all--not later, not next time.
In 2024, the last time section 702 was up for reauthorization, I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, which had jurisdiction over FISA. I held a public hearing more than 6 months before the authority expired so Members could ask the Biden administration how they were using section 702.
Now, the Trump administration refuses to testify publicly about how they are using this power.
Enough is enough. There is no excuse for ramming through an extension of 702 at the last minute without regular order and without common sense and in violation of the Constitution.
The American people deserve better from their representatives. They can and they should protect the American people from threats to their security and threats to their civil liberties.
Mr. President, today, I am voting in favor of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. Whether they are renting or buying, too many Americans struggle with the cost of housing. This bill includes crucial reforms to streamline and enhance housing programs, as well as important incentives for communities to build high quality, affordable housing for all. I am also proud that this legislation includes my bipartisan VA Home Loan Awareness Act and VALID Act to help more veterans and their families secure affordable home loans.
We have much more work to do to deliver affordable housing to the American people, but this bipartisan legislation is a step forward. We need to examine ways to increase investment in housing supply and improve financing options, as well as expand vouchers to directly assist families. There are also different perspectives on how this legislation's treatment of ``build-to-rent'' housing could affect housing supply and prices. Accordingly, we must closely monitor housing markets to ensure those provisions support housing affordability appropriately and make adjustments if circumstances warrant. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to increase the production of affordable housing communities need.
Mr. President, the issue of housing is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. It is an issue about helping moms like the one that raised me--the amazing woman that she was--to become a homeowner.
I grew up in rental property, and my first home that I remember was the one that my grandparents were renting, a little 700-square-foot place where me, my mother, and my brother shared a bedroom and a bed. Our experience was one that was filled with tragedy and challenges and a lack of resources, but the one resource we had a lot of was love and hope.
The legislative process today gives us an opportunity to restore hope for so many people who want to just experience their version of the American dream, which is so consistently home ownership.
I am so thankful that back in those days when I was growing up, there was a group of legislators--back in the late seventies and early eighties--who created a program through the USDA that allowed my mom to become a first-time home buyer at 38 years old. But today the average age of a first-time home buyer is 40--40 years old before you ever experience the American dream. That age is too old.
We as a legislative body can do now what a legislative body did then--create opportunities, restore hope, and let young people experience for the first time the American dream--the dream of home ownership.
I am so thankful that it is so far so good, but we must finish the task today. We can do what so many folks failed to do in this legislative body for the last few decades--not a few years but a few decades--which is to pass consequential legislation that makes it easier to become a homeowner for those who are ready for that part of their journey.
I urge this body to vote yes on this bill, and let's create more homeowners at an earlier age. The age of affordability is now, and the solution to affordability is, in fact, us. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and let's get the ball moving.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time has expired. The clerk will read the bill by title, as amended, for the third time.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?
Mr. President, I want to say congratulations and thank you for your leadership.
We just passed a housing bill with 89 Senators in favor of it. Now, this is a bill about increasing supply, and anybody who wants to try to block this bill is going to have to explain to the American people why they don't want to see us build more housing and have that housing in the hands of homeowners, to make that happen.
I thank the Presiding Officer for all you have done, for your leadership, to get us here.
Our Nation is in a full-blown housing crisis. Across rural communities, small towns, suburban neighborhoods, and major cities, home prices are sky-high, rent is through the roof, and just last year, the median age of a first-time home buyer hit 40 years old.
Housing is the single biggest purchase that most Americans will make in their lifetime, but it is far more than that. Owning a home means building economic security. It is the No. 1 retirement plan for families across the country: You pay off your home and live on your Social Security. It helps people have the financing to start small businesses in their communities, and it is the main asset that families can pass down from one generation to the next. Owning a home affects the jobs you can get, the schools your children can attend, and the kinds of communities you can live in.
But for too long, the Federal Government has been asleep at the switch while the crisis grows. Hundreds of thousands of families are priced out of homes by private equity. Many State and local governments have too many rules holding back housing construction. Young people cannot buy their first homes. Seniors and veterans are being left behind. Home ownership is out of the reach of too many families, especially Black families.
We need to act, and that is why I stand here today in support of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This landmark bipartisan bill will help tackle the root cause of this crisis by getting more homes built in every community across this country. It will make sure that families own those homes, not giant corporations looking to jack up the rent and squeeze every nickel of profit they can out of American families.
House Republicans should immediately take up this bill and pass it. If they do not, they will have to explain to families across this country in November why they refuse to lower the cost of housing.
(Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.)
This is the biggest package of bills to make housing affordable in 30 years. This bill has more than 40 provisions, every single one of which is designed to help increase housing supply and bring down housing costs.
Here are just a few of the things this bill will do. It removes regulatory barriers and streamlines environmental reviews to speed up affordable housing development and construction approval processes.
It rewards communities that build more housing, and it prods those that are not building to step up and build more. It strengthens the Community Development Block Grant--CDBG--and HOME Programs to get more affordable housing built and to permanently authorize the CDBG-Disaster Recovery Program to get more money out to disaster-stricken communities faster.
It makes it easier and cheaper to build new manufactured housing by removing the outdated chassis requirements, bringing down the cost of a new unit by up to $10,000.
It creates an Innovation Fund, one that I have been proposing for years, to reward communities that are successfully building more housing with new funding for community infrastructure or even to build more housing.
It will make long-needed improvements to rural housing programs to preserve affordable housing for 400,000 rural families.
It offers new and streamlined funding opportunities for cities and towns to bolster local infrastructure and to convert abandoned buildings into new housing, for homeowners and landlords to make structural home repairs, and for homebuilders to finance new manufactured and modular housing.
And there is so much more in this bill. This bill supports more housing opportunities for veterans, it takes action to reduce homelessness, and it helps address appraisal bias.
And, finally, this bill takes a good first step to get single-family homes back into the hands of American families, not corporations. An overwhelming majority of Americans, across party lines, want to stop private equity from snapping up single-family homes, and this bill does exactly that. It also makes sure that corporate landlords who don't follow the law pay up, and it invests any money they pay in
The bill does another thing that is very important. It preserves the power of State and local communities to tackle the problem of corporate landlords making it harder for families to afford rent and to own a home.
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act has overwhelming bipartisan support. It includes the vast majority of bipartisan housing provisions that passed the House of Representatives, and the bill has strong support from the White House.
Americans have been clear that they want their leaders to focus on lowering costs. There is no excuse to delay this relief. The American people will be watching.
I want to say thank you to Senator Tim Scott for his partnership in this historic bill. His leadership made this bill possible, and I am grateful to work with him on an issue that will matter so much to so many families. I also want to note that every single member of the Banking Committee--Republicans and Democrats--added ideas and specific provisions that made it into this bill. I thank them for their thoughtful and creative contributions and thank them for helping make this a much stronger, better bill.
I also want to offer a very special thank-you to the local and State officials, including the mayors across Massachusetts and all around the country, who helped shape this bill and then who raised their voices to help get it passed. I also want to thank the advocates who have worked tirelessly to push for more and better housing all across America.
So let's get this bill to the House. Let's get it signed into law as quickly as possible. There is no time to spare.
Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to end the reckless Democratic shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. This shutdown has caused chaos at our airports, delayed assistance to communities hit by disasters, and forced thousands of essential frontline employees at TSA, at the Coast Guard, and at the Cybersecurity Agency to work without any guarantee of when they will be paid.
More than 50,000 TSA agents and officers who help keep us safe are currently working without pay, with many forced to find second or new jobs to make ends meet. Some are so discouraged that they have quit. Over the weekend, we saw security lines at some American airports stretch for more than 3 hours as the result of TSA's staffing shortage.
And what is the Democratic response? According to one Democratic Senator, they are ``very serene with what is going on.'' How can you be serene when you have increased the danger to the United States of contraband being smuggled into this country or a terrorist attack occurring or illegal substances being smuggled into our airports?
I don't like to be partisan, but the fact is the American people need to know that the Democrats created this chaos when they walked away from the bipartisan, fully negotiated DHS funding bill and then blocked repeated Republican attempts to pass a short-term funding measure to prevent these disruptions that are so harmful both to our country, security, and to the employees while the negotiations continue.
They claim that they need meaningful policy changes to support fully funding the Department, but their approach to resolving this impasse has been characterized by a lack of urgency and a lack of seriousness.
We are nearly a month into the shutdown of this vital Department. And today--today--marks 2 weeks of the Senate Democratic leadership sitting on what is a good-faith offer from the White House to end the shutdown.
Democrats have even rebuffed entreaties from Senate Republican negotiators to meet to bridge the differences between the two sides, to discuss the White House offer, which believe me, answers many of the concerns that have been raised, without endangering our law enforcement officers.
Instead, they have put forward a bill that takes the bipartisan measure that we negotiated in January and completely strips the funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.
Now, while defunding ICE and CBP may resonate well with far-left activists, it is not a serious public policy solution.
I want to take a moment to highlight some of the work that ICE and CBP do, which goes far beyond immigration enforcement and helps to keep our country safe.
More than a quarter of ICE's annual appropriated budget is for Homeland Security Investigations. They are referred to as HSI. Let me explain what HSI is.
This unit is charged with investigating the illegal movement of people, goods, contraband, weapons, and sensitive technology into, out of, and through the United States. HSI's agents are tasked with combating cartels, human smuggling, child exploitation, forced labor, and investigating international financial crimes.
Do we really want to defund those vital investigations? I think not.
CBP, too, does far more than just immigration enforcement. It is responsible for facilitating legal trade and travel throughout the United States. It screens goods for drugs and protects U.S. industry through its efforts to detect illegal imports, duty evasions, and counterfeits.
Its Office of Trade works to ensure that products made with forced labor are not allowed into our country and that businesses are unable to profit from human trafficking.
CBP's Air and Marine Operations patrols our maritime borders. Its agricultural specialists work to prevent the spread of pests and foreign plants being brought into this country.
Last Congress, the Democratic leadership of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing--an excellent hearing-- entitled ``Combatting Transnational Criminal Organizations and Related Trafficking.'' The witnesses for that hearing were, not surprisingly, representatives of HSI and CBP. These Agencies and their work and the importance of it were highlighted, and I quote the Democratic Appropriations lead who said they are playing ``a critical role in interrupting the flow of fentanyl into the United States.'' That same Democratic Senator said proposed cuts to these accounts would be ``catastrophic'' to their ability to fight cartels.
Now, the other side of the aisle suggests that we defund those exact same efforts.
We cannot continue this way. Real challenges are worthy of a serious response--a response that does not harm our country.
Today, Republicans are again taking steps to restore funding to the Department of Homeland Security and these critical missions. Shortly, we will have an opportunity to vote on allowing the Senate to debate and amend the Homeland Security appropriations bill.
Once on the bill, I believe that we should consider the White House's good-faith February 26 offer, which the Democrats have yet to respond to, even though it addresses many of the concerns that they have raised and that many of us have raised.
This offer would build on the reforms that were included in the bipartisan funding bill negotiated earlier this year, which included new safeguards to protect the American public and our law enforcement and increased oversight.
For example, our bipartisan bill had $20 million, which we added, for body-worn cameras. Those cameras help to protect both law enforcement officers and the people with whom they are interacting.
But the White House offer would go considerably further by increasing substantially the funding for the body-worn cameras. I don't know why my Democratic colleagues would not see that as great progress. It goes beyond what we had previously negotiated in a completely bipartisan way.
There are many other critically important, substantive reforms that are included in the White House's offer. But what do we hear from the Democratic leadership? Nothing--nothing in the 2 weeks since the offer was submitted. They won't even sit down and
The White House's offer represents a good-faith, honest attempt to find reasonable compromises on the differences with our Democratic colleagues. It deserves a good-faith, reasonable, honest response. Instead, silence.
The stakes are far too high.
To my Democratic colleagues, please, stop playing political games when so much is at stake. Work with us to govern. Let's be responsible.
It is time for our Democratic colleagues to get serious.
Mr. President, I am honored to rise on the Senate floor today to recognize one of Florida's best.
Last month, a Martin County man was going about his day when he saw a terrible crash behind him in his rearview mirror. And what he did next was truly remarkable and heroic.
The car behind him had crashed into a canal and was sinking under water. Casey Curtis, who I am told is watching this, didn't hesitate. He jumped into the water ready to help. And when he got out there, he found three young children stuck in the back, screaming for help from that sinking vehicle, and their mother was unconscious behind the wheel.
Casey acted quickly and helped free the kids. He got them to dry land, and then he turned back and went to the driver. He stayed in the water, holding the unconscious woman's head above the water to keep her from drowning, until the first responders got there.
Because of his courageous efforts, this mother and her three children are still alive. The family is still together because he selflessly acted without hesitation and put others' safety ahead of his own.
I am so proud to honor him today with a ``Florida's Finest Award.''
This is not somebody who dedicated his professional career in law enforcement. He didn't take an oath. He just decided that day he was going to be someone's guardian, and he chose to do what few others would have chosen to do.
This award honors Floridians and law enforcement officers who demonstrate selfless courage and go above and beyond to save lives.
Casey did not have to do what he did that day, but what he did makes him remarkable, and we are so proud of his efforts.
So thank you, Casey, for stepping in, risking your own safety to save a family. You are truly one of Florida's finest.
Mr. President, in a few moments, my friend and colleague the Senator from Nevada will offer a unanimous consent request that is very simple. It funds TSA--no conditions; no ifs, ands, or buts.
It just says we are funding TSA. If Republicans want to see our TSA workers get paid, they should not object. It is very simple.
We know we need to straighten this out. Many people have different formulas, but, plain and simple, if you want to fund TSA with no conditions, no preconditions, just yes or no; no ands, ifs, or buts, do not block this resolution.
If Republicans block this resolution, we will know they don't want to fund TSA, because this is the simplest, quickest, easiest way to do it.
Our colleagues on the other side said: Oh, no, we don't want to fund it unless we have a compromise or we have a deal on other parts of ICE and CBP. That is holding the TSA agents and the American people hostage.
We are not holding any hostages. We are just saying: We need to fund TSA. We need to fund it now--no ands, ifs, or buts; no questions asked, no preconditions.
The American people will see. The Rosen proposal is simple. If Republicans block it, they are standing in the way of funding TSA now.
Mr. President, I just heard the minority leader come to the floor of the U.S. Senate and say: What the Democrats want to do is peel apart the Department of Homeland Security--a Department that was set up in this Nation after the attacks of 9/11, the attacks that struck the home city of the minority leader, took down the Twin Towers.
This Department of Homeland Security was set up specifically to protect our Nation. Multiple components were put together to protect America, the American people.
And what are the Democrats doing today? They are coming to the floor to peel it apart and say: Oh, no, we are not interested in protecting the border. Oh, no, we are not interested in making sure illegal immigrant criminals are taken out of the country.
No, that is not what they are doing. They are coming and saying: We are going to just take this part or that part.
This is a comprehensive plan for the Department of Homeland Security to protect our Nation. That is what we are seeing here today. That is why they are here.
Our cyber security is under attack, our people are under attack, our Nation is under attack, and we need to defend ourselves. We need a full Department of Homeland Security, not what we are going to see in the next hour, which is ``Oh, no, let's fund this little part. No, let's fund this little part. No, let's fund this little part,'' as they don't want to fund the Department of Homeland Security.
They say: Well, hey, the Department of Homeland Security is here to guard our coast. We have the Coast Guard in there. We have FEMA for emergency management of Federal problems. We have our cyber security-- where, today, one-third of those people are working and not getting paid and two-thirds today, right this very moment, are furloughed, and that seems to be fine with the Democrats. They don't seem to care because they are so committed to the illegal immigrants who are criminals and in this country, let in by Joe Biden and them. Over 10 million flooded into the country during the last 4 years. They are so beholden and attached to the far-left component of this Nation that they don't care about everybody else.
We have had terrorist attacks right here in the homeland--two in the last 2 weeks. So we are going to stand here, and we are going to listen to this little unanimous consent agreement and that one at a time when our homeland is under attack.
All warning lights are flashing red, and they want to peel apart piece by piece the Department of Homeland Security--a comprehensive Department of our government to protect the American people--because they want to stand with illegal immigrant criminals.
Mr. President, as you know, I have only had the honor--I call it an honor honestly--the honor to serve as a U.S. Senator for 14 months.
Every day when I drive down Pennsylvania, make a left on Constitution, and see the sunrise over the Capitol, I genuinely feel the weight of how important this office is.
I actually have incredible admiration not for my forefathers--my forefathers came from South America--but for the forefathers of the people who built this country. Think of the wisdom of what our Founders envisioned. Our Founders created an institution that is genuinely--it gives me chills to think about the genius of what they did. They created a House of Representatives where every 2 years there is an election, and there is a lot of friction that goes on, and a simple majority passes a bill. Yet they wanted the Senate to be more deliberative. They wanted to force us--and the Presiding Officer personally knows how hard it is--they wanted to force us to have strong conversations with the opposing party to get to a resolution. They really did. They didn't want it to just be simple majority rule; they wanted to make it really difficult.
But what I have experienced over the last 14 months, I have to tell you, is decently disappointing, because for me, what I think should unite is, what do the American people really want from us? what is it that they want their leaders to do?
We have now seen it three times in a row this year where my Democrat colleagues have shut the government
Imagine what that feels like. The Presiding Officer is a dad. Imagine what that feels like, to have to explain to your kids how you went to work, you did your job, you didn't do anything wrong, and yet you don't have the money you need to pay your basic bills.
Yet we here in the U.S. Senate--our paychecks are uninterrupted. We get paid to do our job--a lot more, magnitude more money than average Americans make. We will leave here today and travel to far-off places, and yet we will walk by TSA agents that aren't getting paid.
We expect Border Patrol to do their job. We expect Customs to do their job. We expect FEMA to do their job. I have a big Coast Guard presence in Ohio. We need them to do their job. Yet none of them are getting paid. They did nothing wrong. There isn't a single employee of the Department of Homeland Security who is affected by this who personally is the reason this Department isn't funded.
So I truly, truly, from the bottom of my heart, ask my Democrat colleagues, with an absolute desire to get a result, let's spend 2 weeks--and we can start today, by the way. There is no reason for us to go home. I am willing to start today, like we start right now, and we sit down together, we look at the appropriations bill for the entire Department of Homeland Security, and in good faith--not with political theater, not to score political points, not to be cool on social media, but actually sit in a room and say: Let's get this entire Department funded. Let's not leave here today and walk by a TSA agent knowing that we are the reason they are not getting paid. That is unacceptable.
Let's sit down together. For 2 weeks, we can do that--14 days. I am willing to stay in Washington, DC, for 14 days and hash out an agreement. We can do it. That is what our voters want. That is why they elected us. They don't want us to be shirts and skins on everything.
So, Mr. President, I ask a very simple--make a very simple motion I think most Americans would appreciate. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the substitute amendment, No. 4353, be considered and agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
What that means is that we can fund the employees of the Department of Homeland Security now while we spend 2 weeks working together to get a resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection to the motion?
Mr. President, I understand the political pressures. I really do. We will see that sometimes appealing to a certain voter bloc--maybe it makes us popular. But I want to read you a quote from the deputy Democrat whip--a senior appropriator, by the way--who said:
``[We] are very serene with what is going on.'' You are serene that today, tonight, a dad, a mom is going to come home and say ``Can't do that. Can't pay for your dance recital. Can't pay for your spring break ticket'' because they didn't get a paycheck. I want you to explain to a 12-year-old child why they are not getting paid.
They are going to talk about Senate procedure. They are going to talk about the appropriations process. But this is just another effort to distract us from what is going on here.
So, again, I just urge my Democrat colleague to consider, as you think about your own State--by the way, I genuinely believe you deeply care about your State. I hear you talk about it, and it is absolutely sincere. You deeply care about your State. Think about those Border Patrol agents that are welcoming visitors from all over the world to Las Vegas. Think about those ICE agents that are arresting criminal aliens, like the one that was just recently arrested. That was a pretty bad guy.
Imagine those TSA agents, the Coast Guard, FEMA, Cybersecurity--you have a lot of those resources in your State. Can I please ask you for some level of humanity to get this done?
Reconsider your objection, and let's fund the Department of Homeland Security, TSA agents, for 2 weeks. Please. I ask you to do that.
Mr. President, you know, I appreciate my colleague, but we have had more than 2 weeks. So where have you been? Where have you been?
This is a nonstarter. Come to the table. Let's give ICE the same training as local law enforcement, as our FBI. We want ICE agents that are transparent, trained, and accountable, not acting above the law.
So now we are almost a month into the Republican shutdown of Homeland Security. The Republicans control the White House, the House, and the Senate. So let's remember how we got here. Donald Trump and Kristi Noem were so, so eager to carry out their cruel mass deportation agenda that they actually cut training for ICE officers from 5 months--imagine this--to 47 days. Why 47 days? Well, you can't even make this up-- because it honors Donald Trump, who is the 47th President. So you cut down 5 months to 47 days. What are you thinking about adequate training?
By cutting training and increasing recruitment, Trump and Kristi Noem sent thousands of untrained agents with their guns and their badges into communities all across this country. They added deportation quotas for these officers to meet, and Trump and Kristi Noem pushed these untrained officers to round up as many people as they could wherever they could, and that included legal immigrants and American citizens. That is right.
Instead of deporting illegal, violent criminals--something we do all agree on, by the way--they went after legal permanent residents, visa holders, law-abiding citizens, with devastating consequences when we saw two of our fellow Americans brutally murdered in Minneapolis.
The American people were rightfully horrified and angry, and they demanded accountability, which is exactly what Senate Democrats are pushing for.
We proposed a commonsense, basic idea that ICE officers, well, should just be required to follow the same standards as our local law enforcement--all of my colleagues here--your law enforcement has to follow. That is it. Simple. We want ICE officers to wear body cams, end roving patrols, use judicial warrants, and to respect people's rights. It should be a no-brainer.
Democrats have been ready and willing in good faith to enact these commonsense reforms, fund the Department, and keep our country safe, and, shamefully, our Republican colleagues have refused to pass these reforms. They would rather see the Homeland Security Department shut down than pass commonsense guardrails to hold ICE accountable, rein them in, and as a result, the American people are paying the price. Travelers at our airports, seeing longer lines. TSA officers are being forced to work without pay.
As the Senator from Nevada, you are right--I know just how serious the situation is. My State relies heavily on tourism. More than 50 million visitors travel to Nevada every year to attend conventions, visit our beautiful public lands, enjoy live entertainment, sports, and we support hundreds of thousands of hospitality workers.
Air travel is the gateway to our economy, so when TSA staffing levels drop because officers aren't getting paid, wait times at airport security checkpoints stretch longer and longer. It doesn't just inconvenience travelers; it does undermine security and directly threatens jobs, businesses, and livelihoods across our State.
That is why I rise today with a very simple and practical proposal. If we can't move forward funding the entire Department--sitting down, negotiating in good faith, which you have had plenty of time to do already--we should be at least able to come together to pay the hard- working staff of one of its most essential components: TSA.
Let's not have TSA officers in the middle of this fight. They don't deserve it. We all agree their salaries should be funded, so let's fund it. Let's do it.
Today, I am asking my colleagues to take a simple step. Let's pass my legislation right now and pay the TSA workers so that commercial air travel remains safe and functional and our TSA agents receive the pay they have earned.
I am introducing this bill today with Commerce Committee Ranking Member Cantwell so we can finally get our airports moving again. If Republicans are going to insist on shutting down the Department of Homeland Security, they should at the very least join us in ensuring that the traveling public does not pay the price.
They even implied in their own tweet that they are for funding TSA, so let's see if that is true, because, you know what, tweets are easy. Tweets are easy. Talk is easy. Will they back up what they say with their votes? We are about to find out.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4073, submitted earlier today, and that would fund the TSA; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I just offered to fund the Department of Homeland Security 5 minutes ago. In fact, I said in good faith that we could sit down, have a conversation, and get this thing done. I just did that. Why are we saying the TSA agents, whom I totally respect? How about the Border Patrol guys and gals? How about Customs? How about CISA? How about FEMA? How about the Coast Guard? Are we saying we are going to penalize all of them? Why would we do that?
Let's fund the whole Department. Let's get this over with. In fact, I would even offer to fund it until Monday. Let's all--every single U.S. Senator--agree to stay here until Monday, until we get this negotiated. In the meantime, we fund the Department, and we retroactively pay every single worker.
If that is not acceptable, I will ask one more, and I will be the first one to offer it: If the answer is that we leave here today without funding the Department of Homeland Security, every single Senator should give their paycheck to a charity of their choice, retroactively from the beginning of the shutdown, until we get this Department funded. We should not get paid while government employees who did nothing are not getting paid.
For that reason, I object to that narrow funding of certain people and not others.
Mr. President, we can fully fund DHS right now--right now--if Washington Republicans will just agree to commonsense reforms for ICE--the same ones that local law enforcement have: Identify yourself. Wear a body camera. It is good for the agent and for the community. Get full training. Respect our Bill of Rights. We want them to be trained, transparent, and accountable like every other law enforcement officer in this country.
I find it extremely disappointing that you haven't come to the table for those commonsense reforms so far. We can let the TSA and other parts of Homeland go and continue to negotiate. Let's remember that the Big Beautiful Bill gave tens of billions of dollars to ICE. They are not running out of money or any pay anytime soon.
Mr. President, every day the Democrats refuse to fund DHS, they choose politics over the safety and security of our Nation. They continue to be the party of open borders and defund the police. To make it worse, they continue to refuse to meet. I am sitting here. It is like I am watching a divorce with two parents fighting over the kids. The Democrats say they want to meet, but they won't meet.
The White House sent them an offer 14 days ago. There has been no response. There has been no official response. There has been no communication back to the White House. I know that the chairperson of DHS Appropriations has reached out multiple times to her counterpart, but they refuse to sit down. It is the same way with the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee. It is the same thing with our majority whip and our majority leader in that they have reached out through their counterparts and have asked to sit down. So someone is lying here, OK? Somebody is lying. I know that our appropriations folks would sit down this afternoon and work this out. I absolutely believe that they could.
That is why, in a moment, I am going to ask that we fund DHS for 2 weeks. That should be the goal. That should be the objective. I will almost guarantee, if calm minds sit in the same room and go through their asks on ICE, we will figure something out, but there are no negotiations if the other side won't sit down here. That is what America needs to know--that the Democrats have refused to respond to the White House. They have refused to negotiate person to person. So we are happy to have this debate right here and right now.
In a second, I am going to offer a clean 2-week CR to fully fund DHS. I am asking that we fund DHS for 2 weeks so as to protect American lives and then come back and talk, and let's work through our differences.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the substitute amendment No. 4353 be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, again, we have asked to fund the DHS for 2 weeks. My colleagues have different ideas on what to do here, but I think that we absolutely owe it to our friends and neighbors back home in that our country is less safe today when we don't have DHS funded and that they ought to cooperate to keep us safe.
I am every bit as concerned about sleeper cells waking up today-- Iranian sleeper cells waking up today--and carrying out attacks on Americans. I am every bit as concerned about that as I am for the safety of our soldiers' lives.
So I appreciate the objector's concerns here, and I look forward to figuring out a way to get the DHS open.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. President, I share these concerns about the safety and security of the American people. I spent my career working in national security and counterterrorism, and these are exactly the reasons we need to make sure that we are taking the steps that we can agree upon.
There is no doubt. As we have had debate after debate this week, we know we are far apart still when it comes to immigration, when it comes to that aspect of the Department of Homeland Security, but what the American people know and what every family has to deal with is that you can also think through what it is that you do agree on and try to move forward with that and try to then further focus in on the issues where there are disagreements. I think that is a very pragmatic idea, a pragmatic approach, that the American people can understand.
So, in just a few moments, I will ask my colleagues to pass commonsense legislation to fund the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, known as CISA. I know maybe the American people are not as familiar with this aspect of the Department of Homeland Security, but I think that they understand that we are in a different moment now than we were just
Then, here at home, there is concern about our own homeland security. When the President was asked about this, should we be concerned about threats to our homeland, he said: ``I guess [so].''
That is what he said.
He said: ``I guess [so].'' He said that people may die; that that is what happens in war.
I am finding that absolutely unacceptable for a Commander in Chief to talk about homeland threats with that level of blase attitude.
We all know that Iran has the capability of launching cyber security attacks on the United States. We have seen it before, and we had seen this administration, even before this war, take the steps to gut this Agency that is in charge of so much of the critical infrastructure and cyber security protections. They have forced out and reassigned personnel to other missions. They have attempted to slash the budget. The Agency, CISA, has lost one-third of its workforce under this administration and the abysmal leadership of Secretary Noem.
As I said on the floor yesterday, we are at war, and we need to understand that we should take all of the steps available to be able to push forward on the tools that we need. When it comes to immigration, we know that the Republicans pushed forward on the funding for that through the reconciliation bill last year. So let us make sure that the rest of the Department of Homeland Security, including this incredibly important aspect of CISA, is able to step up at this dangerous time.
I hope the Republicans will join us and make good on that obligation today by funding CISA. That is why I am asking my colleagues to pass this bill to fund our cyber security workers and ensure that we have the resources in place to counter these threats. That should be something that, I hope, all of us can agree on. Now is the time to put the politics aside and focus on them.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4074, submitted earlier today, and that would fund CISA; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, just 10 minutes ago, we offered to fund CISA and all of DHS. I am not going to leave behind the TSA. I am not going to leave behind the Coast Guard. I am not going to leave behind FEMA. I am not going to leave behind ICE and the Border Patrol.
My colleague mentioned his experience in the State Department, which I have great respect for. He knows that, if one Agency is closed down, it impacts everybody else in the State Department. He also should understand--and I know he does; I know that he understands this--that if you shut down a part of DHS, it impacts everybody else and that there is a domino effect of problems.
There is no one on the Democrat side who could argue that we wouldn't be safer if all of DHS were funded. No one could argue that we wouldn't be much safer as a nation if all of DHS were funded. But, instead, with all due respect, my colleagues across the aisle are turning to politics. They acknowledge the danger that this country is in, but they continue to choose politics over the safety and well-being of our Nation. Carving this up--carving the bill into separate pieces--makes no sense. It is a blatant attempt to distract from the fact that they are putting American lives at risk every single day.
I would ask my colleagues who are pushing this piecemeal approach and who voted against full DHS funding a dozen times--so Democrats have voted against DHS funding at least a dozen times, and they are going to vote against it again several times today. I have got to go back. This is the one place where we probably disagree on the facts. Again, with respect to my colleagues, there is no negotiating happening if you won't sit down with us. There is no negotiating happening if you won't return or at least speak back to the White House and say: This is what we object to. This is what we want.
What do you all want?
I would ask my colleagues across the aisle to commit, as soon as our next vote is over with, to sitting down with our approps team and working this out. But there is no negotiating happening, right, America? There are no negotiations happening. The Democrats will not sit down with us. It is because they like this political argument.
I want to just draw the roadmap here.
Under the previous White House, they let millions of people come across our border, unvetted--violent criminals, known terrorists--and these sleeper cells are now starting to open. Republicans took over. We secured the border. We empowered the Border Patrol, and we empowered ICE. We stopped the flow of illegal aliens and started deporting those criminals. Because of that, America is a safer place today--America is a much safer place today--but now you are trying to unwind everything and defund the police. This is the theme here. Democrats defund the police. They want open borders. Republicans are the party of law and order. We want secure borders. We want ICE to do their job.
The Democrats are now doing everything in their power to obstruct ICE's efforts to deport those threats. They have shut down funding for the entire Agency--an Agency that also has critical Departments for identifying threats and keeping American lives safe, like cyber security. This Agency is a frontline in cyber defense. Most Americans don't understand what the cyber defense Agency is, but it is a frontline in cyber defense. It protects our grids, our hospitals, water systems, and more from relentless threats--from China, Iran, and criminals. I know my colleague who has worked in the State Department knows that those threats aren't just theoretical.
Every day, we are having thousands of cyber attacks, but the Cybersecurity Agency does not operate in a vacuum. They depend upon the CBP and the TSA and FEMA and the Secret Service and the Coast Guard to function. Funding one Agency while starving the rest is like funding Patrick Mahomes. It is like giving him a lifelong salary--the best deal ever--but not giving him a good offensive tackle. We saw how that worked out in the last Super Bowl. You have to fund the whole Agency. Again, the White House sent an offer 2 weeks ago--crickets from the Democrats.
Why don't you respond to what the White House sent you? Why don't you sit down with our approps team?
Mr. President, I will say we are ready to negotiate. We are the ones that want to be at the table here. But look at what has happened since negotiations have begun. Since we started this several weeks ago, we are again now at war. We are at war because the President refused to engage with this body, refused to engage with Congress about that, finding ourselves with these types of threats.
Since negotiations began, we now have a Department of Homeland Security Secretary fired. The Department is in chaos right now. How are we to understand what roles are going to be coming next, what this administration is going to be doing next, when they cannot even get their own Department in order?
So, yes, we are going to continue to push. And as I said, we have still large disagreements. And I am as concerned with what is happening in Iran--I am as concerned about that here because we have about 30 percent of the casualties that we face in Iran, with this attack and war with Iran--we saw that number, about 30 percent of that number in Minnesota. Two American citizens killed in Minnesota, still no formal, independent investigation at the level that is needed. Still no answers.
So that is why we have got to move forward, fund CISA, fund these other elements of the Department of Homeland Security that can keep our country safe.
Mr. President, I would just ask my colleague to commit for your appropriations people to sit down face-to-face with our appropriations staff and our members this afternoon.
Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553; I ask that the substitute amendment, No. 4353, be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, this is the DHS bill that would fund all the things that are in the DHS bill that the Democrats negotiated until they pulled the rug out from underneath that negotiation to politically grandstand on the Senate floor now for nearly a month.
The truth of the matter is that--I want to make the point for those who care about the way the Senate operates. First of all, we didn't have any appropriations bills the first 2 years. The majority party has now put appropriations bills on. There have been 11 out of 12.
I was told that policy debates are not to enter the discussion on appropriations bills because things like this can happen.
To my Democrat colleagues: If you have a bill that you want to defund ICE with, put it on the floor. I guarantee it will get voted down because it is an extremely unpopular position.
We are not going to let you get to that result by way of holding everyone else hostage.
If you want to support all the Agencies in this negotiated bill, you have a way to do it. But I think we really know what this is about. What this is really about is the Democrats lost an election where the issue of border enforcement and deportations were on the table, front and center in front of the voters, and the voters supported it. Recent polling still shows that.
But to satisfy their radicalized base--which are the same people, these leftist NGOs that conjure and foment discontent, blow whistles, try to create confrontations with ICE agents--won't let them do it, and they are kind of stuck.
So the only thing they have left now is the same playbook they ran a couple of months ago by shutting down the government, but this time they are shutting down DHS.
And to make that clear, Joe Biden and the Democrats let 15 million people in here illegally, tens of thousands of murderers, hundreds of thousands of violent criminals, and now that same party wants to defund the Agency that is charged with deporting these monsters.
So we have a choice. I choose to support law enforcement. I am not going to go along with the idea that we are going to give the Democrats the ability to kneecap ICE so they can get amnesty by lack of enforcement.
And with that, Mr. President, I renew my motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, yesterday and today, Democrats have been on the floor asking for something very simple: Let's open up TSA. Let's open up CISA, which protects this country from cyber attack. Let's open up the Coast Guard. Let's open up FEMA.
Republicans have said ``no'' repeatedly. Yesterday, we said: Let's open all four Agencies up together. Republicans denied us that motion. Today, we are trying to see if we can open up one at a time.
What Republicans are saying is that: We want to hold TSA, our airports, the protection of our coastline, the defense of this Nation from cyber attacks, and our response to emergencies hostage to their determination to continue to fund a law enforcement operation at ICE that is out of control.
So Republicans are saying: We are going to keep TSA shut. We are going to keep the Coast Guard shut. We are going to keep FEMA shut until you allow the President to continue to terrorize our communities with a lawless, out-of-control ICE.
This isn't just what you see on the news. The scenes out of Minneapolis were horrific, unconscionable, American citizens being gunned down on the streets. One Federal judge found that ICE is in violation of 96 different court orders right now all across the country. Courts have ruled in 4,000 cases that ICE has jailed people illegally.
ICE is behaving in a brazenly lawless and unconstitutional manner, and none of us--Republican or Democrat--should be interested in funding a part of the Federal Government that is operating outside of the bounds of law.
We swore an oath to the Constitution. And so we have a serious discussion that is happening as we speak between Republicans and Democrats about how we can come together to fund ICE. But while that discussion happens, why are we keeping shut down the Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA? It is not necessary.
If Republicans just stopped coming to the floor to object, we could open up TSA right now. We could get those salaries paid.
I am going to offer a motion to open up funding for the Coast Guard. We could get the people who protect our shorelines paid.
And, yes, this is a mess. This is a mess. I admit it. This is a mess. But we didn't have shutdowns when Democrats were in charge of the Senate.
We are at a logjam because the Republicans refuse to listen to the very reasonable concerns that Democrats and the American people have about the way that ICE is behaving.
And by the way, we aren't representing some fringe political constituency. In the last national poll, 60 percent of Americans said that Congress should not fund ICE until they clean up their act. The vast majority of Americans believe that that Agency is out of control.
But if you went out there and asked those same Americans whether they think that TSA and the Coast Guard and FEMA should be shut down while we resolve those differences, they would say: Hell no. Open up the airports. Protect our shorelines.
So we are going to continue to come to the floor and attempt to convince Republicans to release these hostages.
I know that you are committed to supporting the President's lawlessness. I don't understand why you won't stand up and say it is wrong that there are 96 different court orders that ICE has violated, it is wrong that American citizens are being killed on the streets, that it is wrong that schools are being tear gassed.
But while we are having this difference of opinion on ICE that is sort of hard to understand, don't hold the rest of the Department of Homeland Security hostage to your insistence that the President get to act outside the bounds of law when it comes to the enforcement of our immigration laws.
I am going to offer a motion. And, again, yesterday, we offered a motion to open up all of the rest of the Department of Homeland Security. I am going to offer a more targeted motion.
On the average day, the Coast Guard saves 12 lives, interdicts 1,250 pounds of cocaine, screens 300 vessels. It would be really important to get our Coast Guard opened up.
I know my colleague from Delaware thinks the same thing. Right before I offer the motion, I yield to her for a quick question.
I want to start off as the ranking member on the U.S. Coast Guard Subcommittee, and I stand here today, first of all, to acknowledge your leadership and to acknowledge the fact
And, again, as ranking member of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, we know that the Coast Guard keeps our Nation safe in times of peace, but also in times of war. Even wars that weren't brought to Congress or that have no strategy or exit strategy, they do their job.
From protecting our ports, to helping our communities with search and rescue operations--the Coast Guard is critical to our Nation's national security and safety. They patrol over 4.5 million square miles of ocean. They protect over 95,000 miles of U.S. coastline. They secure over 26,000 miles of commercial waterways and ensure the safety of over 360 ports, 3,700 marine terminals, and 25,000 miles of navigable channels. The men and women of the Coast Guard of the United States dedicate their lives to protecting the largest system of ports, waterways, and coastal seas in the world.
And right now--right now--over 42,000 Active-Duty servicemembers are uncertain about whether they will receive their next paycheck, and nearly 10,000 civilians who support their critical work are going without pay right now. Their next paychecks should actually be hitting their accounts in a couple of days, which is why what we do here today is so vital.
I had the privilege of visiting the Sector Delaware Bay last summer, and I met the coasties stationed there, and I got to hear firsthand how deeply connected they are to our mission, to our safety, to our economy, and our national security. And it helped clarify how immensely important that we must take care of the coasties at home so that they can serve our country with confidence at sea.
Again, right now, we are neglecting our duty. Politics aside, the Coast Guard has a job to do, and we have an opportunity to do something about it.
Our colleagues asked us for more weeks. We got 2 weeks in the beginning. We are now weeks and weeks and weeks from those 2 weeks.
The best way that we can support our Coast Guard men and women is to pay them. And while we, as Democrats, fight to address a broken Agency that we know of as ICE, we have to recognize and pay our Coast Guard's men and women.
So, Senator Murphy, do you agree that our colleagues across the aisle should join us in paying our Coast Guard men and women without delay?
Especially at a time when the United States is at war, we cannot afford to have our coastlines undefended. The motions that Republicans have been making today have offered to pay the Coast Guard for 2 weeks. That is not good enough.
Right now, this motion that I will make will allow the Coast Guard to be paid for the rest of the year. If the Senator does not object to my motion, then minutes from now, the Coast Guard--the 52,000 people who work for the Coast Guard--will know that we honor their service and that we are going to pay them for the rest of the year, and so here is my motion.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill at the desk that would fund the Coast Guard; that the bill be considered read three times and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
My colleague from Connecticut just talked about this minutes ago. Minutes ago, the very same Senator objected to Coast Guard funding. So here we are again with political gamesmanship and grandstanding for some clip to show that you actually want to fund the Coast Guard. Meanwhile, you just voted against the Coast Guard.
The Democrats do not want to fund the Coast Guard because they are so hell-bent on defunding ICE.
And the term ``out of control'' was used. Do you know what is out of control? The language being used on this floor to describe Federal law enforcement--Nazis, the Gestapo. This is very dangerous. This is very dangerous.
And I will tell you that I have great appreciation for the men and women who go into very dangerous situations to deport criminals who want to rape and murder our fellow citizens. I appreciate them.
So five reasons why I cannot go along with this scam: Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, Kayla Hamilton, Dacara Thompson, and Hallie Helgeson--all Americans--all murdered by illegal aliens released by Democrats, instead of being deported.
So what else is out of control other than the Democrats' language? These leftist activist organizations that are creating the chaos in the streets.
There are nine sanctuary jurisdictions in this country that, actually, probably are significant. In those nine sanctuary jurisdictions, there is a 590-percent increase for anti-ICE attacks.
They are creating conditions with the hope that they get some viral moment. This is dangerous. This is out of control.
One more thing that is out of control: sanctuary jurisdictions at large.
And for the friends watching at home, what is a sanctuary jurisdiction that the Democrats are so proud of? They are local jurisdictions that will not tell Federal law enforcement when an illegal alien rapist or murderer is being released from prison.
It happened--by the way, the new Virginia Governor just pledged that she won't do it.
The monster Abdul Jalloh, from Sierra Leone, with 30 priors, who stabbed to death a fellow citizen of ours--she has pledged to not let ICE know when that monster is released from prison.
That is who they are. That is what we are fighting against, and we are not going to allow them to kneecap our Federal law enforcement from getting these monsters out of our country.
They just voted against this. They just voted against the Coast Guard. They just voted against the Secret Service. They just voted against TSA.
They want to undermine law enforcement and give blanket amnesty to 15 million people here illegally. That is the truth.
My friend, you have lost the argument with the public. You just have. The public thinks that ICE is out of control. The public does not want ICE to continue operating in the way that they are operating. They have seen the scenes out of Minneapolis. They are watching what is happening in Vermont today. And they don't agree with you. The majority of Americans, by a large margin, say that what is happening today is out of control.
And, yes, you did offer motions to keep the Coast Guard open for 2 weeks. That doesn't help the peace of mind of the 52,000 people who work for the Coast Guard and wonder whether they are going to have more than one paycheck.
You are objecting to a motion to keep them open for the rest of the year. And so tomorrow, when TSA is still not open and the Coast Guard is still not open, and FEMA is still not operating, there is only one reason.
Today you are offering motions to keep them open for 2 weeks, and you are objecting to motions to keep those Agencies open for the whole year. People are going to see the difference.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
It feels like ``Groundhog Day'' here on the Senate floor, trying to bear with all the problems. I wish we could all get in one room and be able to actually talk to each other like human beings and people rather than just rant.
Fourteen days ago--2 weeks--14 days ago, the White House sent over a proposal to my Democratic colleagues and said: We understand there are issues with ICE. We understand there are issues with CBP. So let me make a proposal to you of some options that we can do that we should be able to agree on--14 days ago.
Those options included mandatory body-worn cameras for ICE agents and CBP--mandatory--name tags for every single agent, to be able to have an identifier for every single agent that is
The White House laid all of those things out, 14 days ago, that one of my Democratic colleagues, who is on this floor, said to me was an entirely reasonable offer from the White House--14 days ago. And since that time period, radio silence from my Democratic colleagues. The White House had no response.
TSA agents are not being paid, FEMA agents are not being paid, and Cybersecurity folks are not being paid while we wait for the counteroffer.
What is happening is good politics from my Democrat colleagues. They feel like this is good politics to be able to continue and to be able to press in that some folks on the far, far, far left want to defund ICE and want to show there is a huge fight to be able to take on ICE.
The result of that is 250,000 people--families, individuals--that work with DHS wait for an answer--wait. This has got to get resolved. The politics in this moment have got to stop.
I was here last Thursday saying all of us should stay and stay over the weekend and not leave until this is resolved, and everybody just left.
A quarter million DHS employees are looking at this room right now and saying: Stop bickering about this. Just solve it. Whoever has got the paper, just answer it. Just go back and forth.
Let's figure this out. Let's actually just solve this.
So we have tried multiple times to say: Let's fund it.
The White House has made good-faith offers to say: Here are offers to be able to get some dialogue going if somebody will actually talk back to me.
But while we wait on the politics to cool, in the meantime, I need to offer again what we started with at the very beginning, and that was just this: Can we at least open things up for 2 weeks, like we did at the beginning?
We started this battle weeks and weeks and weeks ago, and we started it with: OK, we agree on all of the other appropriations bills. We don't agree on this one because it has funding for ICE, because it has funding for CBP in it. And so we can't get agreement on that.
Can we at least just keep the status quo and keep debating so that the fight is here in this room, rather than affecting families that literally are trying to get grocery coupons and gift cards from people so they can feed their families. Can we at least, at a minimum, do 2 weeks, like we did at the start of this? If we can't agree on everything, let's at least keep this open.
Now, this body knows I have been fighting for years to say: We should never have a government shutdown at all.
I literally don't know how many times I have been on this floor talking about this issue, saying government shutdowns should be a thing of the past.
We should be here 24/7 until we solve the problem and hold all those Federal workers harmless.
If we can't get to that, which we have not been able to get an agreement to at least do that, then let's at least have a continuing resolution that pays everyone at DHS for the next 2 weeks while we keep arguing until we can resolve our issue.
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 156, H.R. 4553. I further ask that the substitute amendment, No. 4353, be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
We have been having this debate over a series of motions here over the last hour-plus.
First of all, a status quo position for CBP and ICE is not acceptable. We have seen the violations of people's civil rights across the country for the better part of this last year. Last year alone, it was the deadliest year for detainees in ICE custody. And calendar year to date, we are on track to surpass that by a lot. So, no, the status quo is not acceptable.
For the other Departments and Agencies--TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, CISA, et cetera--why settle for 2 weeks? We should fund them for the balance of the Federal fiscal year. I think we will have an additional motion to that effect in a minute.
But on the motion currently before us, Mr. President, I object.
Mr. President, in the few minutes that we have left before the scheduled vote, I do want to make things abundantly clear to the American people who are watching at home. Democrats are here trying to reopen and pay the employees of TSA, members of the Coast Guard, folks who work at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and, of course, FEMA. That is right.
Democrats are trying to address the issues of security lines at airports and protect Americans from cyber attacks. We want to pay the brave women and men of the Coast Guard and to help Americans rebuild after disasters. And Republicans are blocking these efforts one after another.
The question that is holding us all up, folks, is whether or not we, in this process, should hold ICE and CBP accountable with the same basic standards that apply to just about every other law enforcement agency in the country at the State level and at the local level-- reforms that my colleague from Oklahoma said were commonsense.
I am glad to hear that from the Republican side of the aisle. So let's incorporate that into Federal statute. But they refuse to do so thus far.
Let's remember, ICE and CBP already have billions and billions of additional dollars from the Republican's so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year. So ICE and CBP are in zero danger of running out of money.
Who is at danger of running out of money? It is TSA. It is the Coast Guard. It is CISA. And it is FEMA. And so that is why Democrats have put these series of motions forward.
Now, in a minute here, my colleague from California Senator Schiff will ask for unanimous consent to pass a bill that we introduced together to pay the critical FEMA employees and sustain their essential operations for the rest of the year because we know how natural disasters act. It is not a matter of if; it is a matter of when the next one will strike. And whether it is a hurricane, a tornado, an earthquake, or a flood, we know it is coming. We just don't know where it is coming. And the Federal Government has an obligation to the American people to be ready to act on a moment's notice.
So let's give FEMA the funding they need.
I will defer now to my colleague from California.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mr. President, just over a year ago, Los Angeles County fell victim to the worst natural disaster in my lifetime. The Eaton and Palisade fires were unthinkable tragedies--lives taken; livelihoods incinerated; old photographs, family heirlooms, childhood homes gone forever; the homes of more constituents, friends, staff gone, along with the place where my wife and I got married; whole blocks of neighborhoods razed with indiscriminate and random destruction.
In the year since, alongside Senator Padilla, I have worked to help the families impacted by these fires in every way I can. I visited recovery efforts in the earliest days of the fires, meeting with survivors and lending a hand where I could to help families grieving what these fires took from them.
My team and I have facilitated Federal, State, and local connections for these communities, trying to ensure they have the resources they need to recover. I have introduced legislation to help families better protect their
But so much work remains. It has been more than a year since the fires, and Congress has yet to move forward on much needed Federal disaster aid for L.A. County. We have urged the President to act. We have called on Congress to act--just as we have with fires, hurricanes, and floods of the past in States red and blue--to pass a supplemental that gives us a fighting chance at building stronger than before.
Yet, for the first time, disaster relief is being apportioned not on the basis of need but on the basis of political affiliation, as if these fires discriminate between homes that voted for the President and those that did not. We have called on the President and this Congress to drop discrimination against California or other States based on no more than its political leanings, and we continue that call today.
But the lack of disaster aid for California and other States is not the only place where this Congress is failing to meet the needs of the American people. Right now, the very Federal Agency we call upon to facilitate disaster recovery, FEMA, is shut down. The Agency whose job it is to provide financial assistance to families and aid the recovery process until houses can be rebuilt and families can move back into their homes has no money from Congress to operate. As a result, this critical Agency, already understaffed, has an even more diminished capacity to help do these critical jobs.
This has gone on for weeks and is unacceptable, and that is what we are here today to change. With this legislation, we can reopen FEMA today. We can give paychecks to the people whose job it is to get Los Angeles and communities across the country back on their feet. We can remove unnecessary slowdowns in the approval processes, in recovery applications, because of the lack of staffing. We can put ourselves on a pathway to finally passing a disaster aid package.
Now, this is not the first time we have tried to reopen FEMA. Senate Democrats have tried to call up and pass legislation to open this Agency multiple times in recent weeks, but we have been told no. And why? Because my colleagues across the aisle continue to insist that this Agency and others--like TSA, the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, and the Coast Guard--cannot reopen until we pass another multibillion-dollar infusion of resources for ICE and CBP.
Senate Democrats have been clear: not another dime for these immigration enforcement Agencies until we see real reforms, until they take off the masks and put on the body cams, until they are held to the same standard as the neighborhood cop on the beat, until their standard of ``no judicial warrant, no problem'' is torn out of the training manual. That is not too much to ask.
In the aftermath of Americans watching DHS storming city apartment buildings like they were behind enemy lines or ICE dragging citizens from their homes or CBP gunning down Americans in cold blood in the street, this cannot be too much to ask. We are seeing families torn apart, citizens detained without medical care, fathers and mothers, grandfathers and grandmothers, aunts and uncles, children detained because of the color of their skin or the language they speak or where they work. We have seen DHS spending $140 million on assault weapons, Glocks, and tasers and countless more on building massive new detention centers.
So we are insisting on reform. We reject the false choice the majority would give us that we cannot reform ICE until we agree to give ICE billions more. These cannot be the only two choices.
Let's pass this commonsense bill and reopen FEMA today. Let's get disaster recovery efforts moving forward. We can do both. We can help Californians in need and others across the country.
So, Mr. President, as in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, on behalf of Senator Padilla and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bill at the desk to make continuing appropriations for the Federal Emergency Management pay and operations in the event of a Federal Government shutdown and for other purposes; that the bill be considered read three times and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will be brief with some comments on this.
I just wish all that was so that was just stated. The White House presented a set of ideas on paper on reform, put them into legislative text, and handed them to Democrats 2 weeks ago--2 weeks ago--and said: Here are the reforms we would agree with that you have asked for: badges, body-worn cameras, deescalation training, process reforms--all those things they put out there. For 2 weeks, my Democratic colleagues have determined that politics is better than the actual solution, and so they have just said: Let's do the politics.
The problem with politics on this is that a quarter million DHS employees are not being paid right now, so it doesn't make good politics for them. They are trying to figure out how to feed their families.
By the way, again, I had a TSA agent from Oklahoma City--who do, by the way, a great job--say to me just last week: I feel like my paycheck is bipolar; I just never know whether it is going to be there or not. That is because my Democratic colleagues have shut down the government just over and over again as their protest against Trump. I get it. They don't like President Trump. They voiced that. But I don't know what my FEMA agents that are working on tornado relief in Oklahoma have to do with their frustration with ICE.
So they come to bring a proposal and to say: Well, FEMA has had a bias and President Trump has had a bias against California with FEMA. And I smile honestly and think: You know, last year--or a year and a half ago, I guess, now--President Biden's FEMA instructed FEMA agents not to go to the houses in disaster areas that had a Trump yard sign in their front yard. So if you want to talk bias of FEMA, the Biden administration FEMA not going to help on disaster relief on houses that had a Trump yard sign--let's talk bias. So I don't agree with that at all.
Here is what we need to do: Stop this, sit down like grownups, and actually solve the problem--because this whole issue of ``I will fund everything but ICE and CBP'' doesn't really work for the ICE and CBP families. I know you may be mad at them, but, you know what, those secretaries and those assistants and those folks that work in all those offices have lives and families as well.
Can I tell you what CBP does? It is not just border patrol. CBP also is managing what is happening at our ports of entry. Let me be specific on this. There are 9,000 CBP agents that work in California, and 2,000 of those CBP agents are working at the Los Angeles-Long Beach port of entry. They are handling the port stuff coming in and out right now. They are not dealing with border patrol. They are not dealing with ICE. But my Democratic colleagues say ``We can't fund CBP,'' including those families that are in California at the Long Beach port. They have nothing to do with all of this. They just want to get a paycheck and to be able to know where they are going.
It has been very, very clear that if we don't fund ICE and CBP--my Democratic colleagues have been very clear: We are not going to fund them. We see the strategy. The strategy is very clear. Those folks won't be paid. They will eventually quit. And they will get what they want--no Border Patrol, no ICE--because all the families have quit.
So listen, I object to this, but I encourage this body to actually sit down and look at what the White House presented 2 weeks ago. Make a counterproposal if you disagree. Do something. But let's get off the dime on this and actually get this resolved for those quarter million families.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to Calendar No. 311, H.R. 7147, and let's start the vote as we were supposed to do at 1:45.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the motion to proceed to H.R. 7147, a bill making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 673.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Anna St. John, of Louisiana, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Mr. President, last Friday, President Trump was quoted saying that Cuba ``is going to fall pretty soon . . . They want to make a deal so badly . . . and we'll see how that works out.''
I agree that it is absolutely in the best interest of both countries to negotiate an agreement--a ``deal'' as the President calls them--but it needs to be a deal that puts the national interest of the United States and the national interest of the people of Cuba first.
To do that, we urgently need to do what the Vatican has called for, and that is a ``dialogue-based solution to the problems that exist'' between our two countries.
It has got to be a solution that stands the test of time, and it should, at a minimum, include the following: One, President Trump can end all restrictions on the right of Americans to freely travel to Cuba. The American and Cuban people should be able to freely interact with one another.
The President should offer maximum support for Cuba's private sector by allowing direct foreign investment and development financing for Cuba's struggling, but really essential, small businesses.
The President must remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. That designation has no legal basis. No other country agrees that it applies.
And the President must call on Congress to repeal the failed United States' embargo of Cuba so that Cuba's economic reconstruction can begin.
And President Trump should lift his punitive blockade of Cuban oil imports that has contributed to an unprecedented humanitarian crisis on the island.
And what about Cuba's leaders? Cuba's leaders should abandon central planning of the economy. It has been a disaster for the Cuban people, as it has been in every other country where it has been tried.
They should take the necessary steps so American companies can compete for contracts to invest in Cuba and help rebuild the country's dilapidated infrastructure--but not like Cuba before the revolution, when the island was run as a corrupt playground for the rich and famous while average Cubans lived in squalor. Contracts must be transparent, and investors must be accountable.
Cuba's leaders must release all political dissidents and accept the right of the Cuban people to express themselves freely, without fear of persecution.
And the United States' and Cuba's leaders should agree on a mechanism for resolving property claims.
Cuba is a small, bankrupt country. It has neither the capacity nor the intention to threaten the United States. And even before the Trump administration cut off oil from Venezuela and started blocking oil shipments to Cuba from other countries, electricity blackouts were common. And, today, electricity is unavailable--unavailable--for
Just think of what that means for homes, for hospitals, for schools, for factories, for farms, trash collection, and public transportation-- all of the essentials of daily life. It is absolutely catastrophic. How does one produce, how does one transport, how does one refrigerate food without fuel? How do you pump and transport water? How do you power ambulances, operating rooms, incubators? You simply can't do it.
Faith-based organizations, Cuban entrepreneurs, and concerned Americans are doing their part, but it is not nearly enough. Cuba's economy is collapsing, and millions of people are suffering hunger, disease, and despair. If this continues, thousands are likely to flee the island, seeking refuge in the United States, just as they did in 1994.
For many years, people in Washington and Miami have blamed Cuba's leaders for the country's problems. That is valid--to a point. The Cuban authorities have clung to their revolutionary slogans, while other countries with communist governments--and with the support, by the way, of the international community, including the United States-- transitioned to a market economy and more open society.
Cuba's centralized economy, after years of absolute mismanagement, dependence on foreign subsidies, and strangled by the U.S. embargo-- that economy is in total shambles. Housing and other infrastructure are decrepit. The health system--something Cubans were proud of--is collapsing due to the very severe shortages. Basic materials and supplies are unavailable, except for those with connections to the outside world.
To quell popular anger, Cuba's leaders always blame the United States, and they harass and unjustly imprison those who speak out against the one-party system. That is wrong, and that must stop.
But let's be candid. The United States is far from blameless. For fully three-quarters of a century, during Republican and Democratic administrations and with Congress, pressed by Cuban-Americans in Florida, we have tried to overthrow the Cuban Government by armed invasion, by assassination, by financing Cuban dissidents, and by imposing a web of sanctions with extraterritorial reach that are more punitive than what we inflict on even more brutal regimes.
You know, the oil blockade now under President Trump--which, if circumstances were reversed, we would condemn as an illegal act of war--is the latest tactic that is attempting to force Cuba's leaders to capitulate to U.S. demands.
You know, much of this could have been avoided. After more than six decades of a U.S. embargo that achieved none of its goals but did hurt the Cuban people, President Obama did change course. Supported by my predecessor Senator Leahy and others, President Obama did open travel for Americans to Cuba, supported Cuba's emerging private sector--it was working--and cooperation with Cuba on migration, public health, maritime security, and many other areas--that cooperation increased.
During those 2 years, the lives of many Cubans actually did improve-- much more so than during decades of U.S. hostility and punitive sanctions.
It was 10 years ago this month that our President then, President Obama, made his historic trip to Havana and offered a new policy of positive engagement to help Cuba modernize its economy and bring new opportunities to the Cuban people. What the President then said:
``[T]o the Cuban people.''
That official good will was reversed in 2017 when the then-Trump administration restored Cold War sanctions. The deal that the President is now seeking seeks to force Cuba's capitulation with the oil blockade, which is inflicting collective punishment on the Cuban population and creating a humanitarian emergency.
By the way, there was no progress built on what President Obama began during the Biden administration, so I don't want this to be seen as just something about one President versus another. This has been sustained policy by the United States over the course of almost 75 years, interrupted only during that moment after the historic trip by President Obama to Havana.
Political and economic change in Cuba is absolutely long overdue. That is not debatable. But the way to get there is not by causing more hardship for the everyday Cuban family. Cuba is no threat to us today, but a failed state 90 miles off our shores would be a threat to us today.
Cuban leaders have had many opportunities to show they could govern differently, and they did miss those opportunities. Today, countries that came to Cuba's rescue in the past are no longer willing to do that, leaving Cuba's leaders no choice but to negotiate with the United States.
So one thing seems certain: Cuba's Government is going to have to change its ways.
The Cuban people--90 percent of whom were born after the 1959 revolution--do want leaders who, rather than repeating tired slogans, accept the need for fundamental changes in how to govern, with greater participation of the people, greater transparency, greater freedom, and real accountability.
On Monday, in response to a question about Cuba, President Trump said:
Of course, the reason Cuba is ``down to . . . fumes'' is largely because of the U.S. oil blockade. But despite that--let me be clear--no American President, under any circumstances, friendly or unfriendly, should threaten to take over another sovereign nation, whether Cuba, Greenland, or anywhere else.
Rather than threats of a takeover, the United States should--should-- negotiate a solution with Cuba which above all else puts U.S. national interests and, as I have said, the needs and aspirations of the Cuban people first.
I urge the Trump administration and Cuba's leaders to take the steps I have outlined to stop the suffering and repression in Cuba and finally put an end to the decades of hostility between our two countries. I believe they would receive overwhelming support from the people of both countries as well as overwhelming support here in Congress.
(The remarks of Mr. WELCH pertaining to the introduction of S. 4095 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, this week we learned that a seventh American had died in the war with Iran. SSG Benjamin Pennington, U.S. Army, was a native of Glendale, KY. That is right near Fort Knox. He was deployed with the 1st Space Battalion, 1st Space Brigade, at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
An Iranian strike mortally wounded him in the line of duty. I am confident, today, Glendale and the rest of Hardin County are surrounding Sergeant Pennington's parents Timothy and Carrie with support. Their son was, by all accounts, deeply admired by neighbors, pastors, and coaches who helped him become the man he became.
At his alma mater Central Hardin High School, Benjamin Pennington was remembered as ``the quintessential all-American.'' Of course, there is no amount of praise for Sergeant Pennington's character, commitment, or bravery that can fill the hole left by his loss. The knowledge that he fell pursuing a noble cause is actually small comfort, but it cannot obscure the empty seat at the dinner table.
And so my deepest sympathies are with the Pennington family today and in the difficult days that lie ahead.
Mr. President, I wanted to come down and make a few remarks on a couple of important topics, but I wanted to begin by just letting the American people know--and my constituents back home in Alaska--what just happened here, just a couple of minutes ago, on the Senate floor. We voted again to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and I am down here, like a lot of Senators. By the way, it was a bipartisan Senate vote to fund Homeland Security, but it didn't pass.
And, you know, I have kind of moved through my anger phase more to my sadness phase with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. This is the fourth time that we have come down to the Senate floor to vote on a bipartisan, bicameral agreement. The House and the Senate got together several weeks ago--Democrats and Republicans--and agreed to fund the Department of Homeland Security. The House passed the bill-- bipartisan, by the way. The agreed-to bill was going to come over here. It did come over here.
And, all of a sudden, my Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle--not all of them, Senator Fetterman has been voting with us-- said: You know what; we are not going to keep that promise. We are going to not fund Homeland Security.
Now, it is really frustrating because they are saying, well, they don't want to do it now because they want to reform ICE. Now, I am a little skeptical of that claim because the White House and Republicans in the Senate have been waiting for weeks for any proposal from the Democrats on their reforming ICE.
The White House and others have put forward: Hey, here is our proposal.
They haven't responded once.
So if they want to reform ICE, they should at least give people in the administration or in the Congress, here on the Republican side, their ideas for reforming ICE. They haven't. It has been weeks.
By the way, the press is not reporting that. I wish they would because it is very bad faith when you are not negotiating at all.
It is one thing to be far apart on ``hey, I have this proposal; you have this proposal.'' They haven't put forward one proposal.
So in the meantime, when we have a very dangerous world out there--we have been briefed in classified hearings that we should anticipate that the Iranian Quds Force, the lead terrorist organization in Iran, is looking for attacks in our homeland. And they won't fund Homeland Security.
Now, one of the things that I am a little concerned about is that this is kind of from the old Biden-Majority Leader Schumer playbook to defund the police and have open borders.
Now, what do I mean? We know that, during the Biden administration, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--many of them--and certainly the Biden administration, they had as policies: We are going to defund law enforcement, and we are going to have open borders.
That is what they did. Eleven million people illegally came into our country during the 4 years of Joe Biden.
And they also knew that the American people did not like those policies. I think that was clear in the 2024 election.
But here is the thing: The far left of the Democratic Party is still committed to these policies.
So, essentially, when you look at what is going on right now, it is back to the future. It is defund the police and open borders 2.0.
What am I talking about? Right now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are saying they will not fund ICE. That is a law enforcement Agency that helps protect us. And they are also saying they will not fund Customs and Border Protection. That is the Agency that controls the border.
It is defund the police, defund law enforcement, and open borders. Once again, they are trying to do it kind of in a backdoor way, but the American people are noticing, and it is a frustration.
You know, the Democratic leader used to oppose shutdowns. As a matter of fact, when we were in the minority here, President Biden was in office, and Senator Schumer was the majority leader, we never had one shutdown. Now, the reason was, when we were negotiating things and we got close, but we weren't there yet, and we ran into the deadline of the government shutting down, we would pass what are called short-term continuing resolutions to keep the government open and keep negotiating.
Senator Schumer said, in 2019, that defunding DHS, which is what they are doing now, would: hurt TSA, hurt Border Patrol, hurt FBI agents, air traffic controllers, food safety inspectors, Coast Guard members. They deal with our security right now--right now--so if you believe in the security of America, vote yes to fund Homeland Security.
I am quoting Senator Schumer. Well, I would agree with his 2019 quote wholeheartedly. Vote yes to fund Homeland Security, keeping our country safe by all those Agencies that he just mentioned.
But now, again, given the far-leftwing tactics and energy in the Democratic Party, anytime--and we saw this in the fall, and we are seeing it right now--that if they don't get their way on an issue, they don't do what we have traditionally done, which is: All right, we are not there yet. Let's compromise. Let's put forward a short-term CR. Let's keep the government open.
They just say: Let's shut down the government.
So that is what we are dealing with. It is a real travesty. It is particularly a travesty for the TSA agents who aren't getting paid, for the Coast Guard agents who aren't getting paid and their families, and for FEMA.
We all have States, including especially mine, where disasters happen. We are still recovering from a big typhoon last fall. The payments going to our State for disaster relief--FEMA is shut down.
And it just doesn't have to happen. It just doesn't have to happen.
We just voted again, in a bipartisan way, to do what the bipartisan agreement with the House and Senate was. Let's fund Homeland Security.
By the way, the reforms for FEMA are in that bill.
There is $2 million of deescalation training that is really important. There is $20 million for body cams for ICE. And yet, for whatever reason, they don't want to fund the government during this dangerous time.
I hope that there is a compromise coming forward. The rumor is that after, I think, 5 weeks, our Democrat colleagues are going to finally respond to the White House and Republicans with their ideas. But, again, it is hard to say you want compromise, you want reform on ICE when you haven't put forward anything in almost 2 months. That is not negotiating in good faith.
But I am hopeful. This is too darn important for the safety of our citizens during a dangerous time, for the men and women of the Coast Guard who do such heroic work and who are now not getting a paycheck.
My Democratic colleagues need to quit listening to the far left, come to the middle, and do what we have always done: compromise and vote to fund the government.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, when I think about the American dream, I
Sunil made the journey from Bombay (Mumbai) to Rockford without the explicit permission from his parents and with the hopes of receiving a liberal arts education at Rockford College, now Rockford University. Through hard work, dedication, and many odd jobs, including cleaning bedpans and laying concrete, Sunil put himself through school. Yet it was the kindness of Illinoisans during his college career that stuck with Sunil: the elderly Swedes who taught him English, the families who hosted him during their holiday celebrations, and his classmates, who took an interest in him and celebrated his culture when he was thousands of miles away from his childhood home. The citizens of Rockford opened their arms to Sunil, and in return, Sunil would spend the next four decades repaying the favor.
After graduating from Rockford College with a degree in accounting, Sunil founded First Rockford Group, which is now known as First Midwest Group, a real estate development firm. If you have played a round of mini golf at Volcano Falls, taken a walk along Perryville Path, or filled up your tank at a Road Ranger stop, you may have seen some of Sunil's work. In fact, if you live in or visit Rockford, it is hard to avoid First Midwest's many projects. They have turned abandoned and forgotten buildings into thriving restaurants, offices, and warehouses. First Midwest's investments in Rockford have breathed new life into the city, driving economic growth and creating jobs for thousands of Illinoisans. But none of this success would have been possible without Sunil. His drive and passion were the defining features of First Midwest. Sunil ensured that First Midwest's projects did not just replicate amenities a neighborhood already possessed, but that they contributed something new to his adopted town. Because of Sunil, when his developments succeeded, so did the community.
Sunil's contributions to Rockford and the State of Illinois extend far beyond his work at First Midwest. Inspired by his parents' lesson to ``water the flowers where you smell the roses,'' Sunil gave millions of dollars and--equally as valuable--countless hours of his time and energy to various charities and community projects. Sunil's passion for development was obvious in his charity work, where he funded the construction of many Rockford city staples. His donations led to the creation of the Keeling-Puri Peace Plaza, the southeast Rockford branch of the YMCA, the Salvation Army Puri Family Disaster Services Center, and many more community hubs. Sunil helped families access vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic and encouraged children to find their passion by sponsoring youth sports programs. He supported educators by spending hundreds of hours a year working on Rockford Public Schools' budget and operations committees and funding the Golden Apple's Outstanding Principal Award. It is no surprise that Sunil received a key to the city of Rockford not once, but twice in his life, as a recognition of his enduring devotion to his home.
Despite the attention required to manage his large real estate business and numerous charitable contributions, Sunil never forgot the university that made it all possible. Through a donation of $5 million and a 28,000-square-foot building, Sunil helped create the Puri School of Business at Rockford University. He founded the school with the hope that it would serve as a vehicle for economic revitalization and as an engine of opportunity for bright and talented students. Soon after, Sunil created the Charles Box Scholarship, which provided a full ride to the Puri School of Business to 30 Black students from the Rockford area. Sunil also served on the board of trustees at Rockford University, using his role to give the next generation of students the same opportunity that he had.
Elected officials on both sides of the aisle have praised Sunil for all that he has done for his community, and I am pleased that, last year, the Illinois State House adopted a resolution honoring his contributions to the State. But Sunil's work extended far beyond Illinois, and his contributions and insights were appreciated by more than one President. Never forgetting where he came from, Sunil was a passionate advocate for improved U.S.-Indian relations and traveled with President Clinton and President Obama to India, in hopes of expanded ties between our two countries. He was appointed by President Obama to the President's Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and by President Biden to the President's Advisory Committee on the Arts for the John F. Kennedy Center.
Loretta and I send our deepest condolences to Sunil's loving partner Candace Ross and his three children Ashwin, Chandan, and Anjali.
Sunil was a living embodiment of what makes America the envy of the world. Coming from humble beginnings, he found much success, both in his business and in his community. The contributions that Sunil made to Rockford were an indispensable part of the city's revitalization and will continue to fuel the city's growth for years to come. While I will miss my friend Sunil, I take comfort in knowing that I can always feel his presence whenever I am in Rockford.
Mr. President, yet again, Senator Murray offered the measure to fund critical Agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, and yet again, the measure was blocked by the Senator from Alabama. As I urged last week, I urge the Senate to adopt this measure and fund these Agencies.
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act requires that Congress receive prior notification of certain proposed arms sales as defined by that statute. Upon such notification, the Congress has 30 calendar days during which the sale may be reviewed. The provision stipulates that, in the Senate, the notification of proposed sales shall be sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
In keeping with the committee's intention to see that relevant information is still available to the full Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the notifications that have been received. If the cover letter references a classified annex, then such an annex is available to all Senators in the office of the Foreign Relations Committee, room SD-423.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, for the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
* Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the recommendation that they be confirmed.)
Mr. President, service is a core American value. We take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or in strengthening our communities at home. Finding common cause through service is how we can overcome the major social, economic, and environmental challenges of our time. That is why I am proud to join Congressman John Larson of Connecticut and Senators Coons, Duckworth, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, and Kim in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now, ACTION, for National Service Act. Our legislation calls for a historic expansion of the number of service opportunities available to Americans and an increased investment in those who serve.
The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to 1 million national service positions within 10 years. It will increase the education award so that an individual completing 2 full years of service will earn the equivalent of 4 years of the average instate tuition at a public college or university. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service by increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach effort to ensure that all young people will be made aware of the many opportunities to serve their country and their communities. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a Cabinet-level Agency and establishes a national service foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities.
Mr. President, this is the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding. As we reflect on the values and the actions that have helped America prosper, we should recognize the essential role that service has played and restore it as a fundamental national value.
We must make the commitment to invest in the education and professional development of those who are willing to dedicate their time and energy in service to their neighbors and the Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays lifelong dividends. Our investment in the G.I. Bill not only honors our servicemembers but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national service programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers.
All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter, and healthier, and to bring us together. It is a pledge we all should commit ourselves to.
I would like to thank the cosponsors of the ACTION for National Service Act and the over 40 organizations, including Voices for National Service, America's Service Commissions, States for Service Coalition, the Corps Network, National AmeriCorps Seniors Association, Service Year Alliance, City Year, and Campus Compact, that have endorsed this legislation. We urge our
S. 4092. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to prohibit the Social Security Trust Funds from investing in cryptocurrency; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 4095. A bill to call for accountability for the killing of innocent civilians, including 5-year-old Hind Rajab and two paramedics, in an attack in Gaza City on January 29, 2024, by Israel Defense Forces, to require the Secretary of State to report to Congress on the attack, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly, if I may, on another subject.
During the war in Gaza, more than 20,000 children have been killed so far. There have been thousands of atrocities in Gaza. Over 70,000 have died, and even more have been gravely injured.
The Israelis' own data shows that the overwhelming majority of the people killed by Israeli forces have been civilians, and it is, regrettably, the highest proportion of civilians to combatants killed in any contemporary conflict.
Today, I want to speak about one such case, the killing of Hind Rajab. Hind was the beautiful 5-year-old child whose photograph you see here next to me. ``Hind,'' by the way means ``hope.''
Hind's death is the subject of a film that has been nominated for an Academy Award on Sunday. The film follows the killing of Hind, the killing of her four cousins, her aunt, her uncle, and two paramedics who were sent to rescue her. It does feature a recording of Hind's voice pleading for help that never arrives.
It is a virtual certainty that the weapons and ammunition provided by American taxpayer dollars were used in this crime. We know this based on forensic investigation of her family's car, where 335 bullet holes were counted.
Despite requests from the Biden State Department, Israel has produced no evidence that it has held anyone accountable for this atrocity. That is why today I am introducing the Justice for Hind Rajab Act, along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Sara Jacobs of California.
Our bill raises a simple question. Something must be done about this crime. The U.S. Government must--must--do its part to hold those responsible accountable as some small measure of justice for the thousands of children who have been killed in this war and that continues to this day.
Mr. President, service is a core American value. We take inspiration from those who have answered the call to serve, whether in defense of our Nation abroad or in strengthening our communities at home. Finding common cause through service is how we can overcome the major social, economic, and environmental challenges of our time. That is why I am proud to join Congressman John Larson of Connecticut and Senators Coons, Duckworth, Blumenthal, Klobuchar, Baldwin, and Kim in introducing the America's Call to Improving Opportunities Now, ACTION, for National Service Act. Our legislation calls for a historic expansion of the number of service opportunities available to Americans and an increased investment in those who serve.
The ACTION for National Service Act will honor our national value of service, while addressing the barriers that limit citizens' opportunities to serve. Our legislation will set us on a path to 1 million national service positions within 10 years. It will increase the education award so that an individual completing 2 full years of service will earn the equivalent of 4 years of the average instate tuition at a public college or university. The ACTION for National Service Act will also ease other financial barriers to service by increasing the living allowance and eliminating the tax liability for the education awards and living stipends. The bill calls for a robust outreach effort to ensure that all young people will be made aware of the many opportunities to serve their country and their communities. Finally, the ACTION for National Service Act calls for elevating the Corporation for National and Community Service to a Cabinet-level Agency and establishes a national service foundation to leverage private sector resources to support national service activities.
Mr. President, this is the 250th anniversary of our Nation's founding. As we reflect on the values and the actions that have helped America prosper, we should recognize the essential role that service has played and restore it as a fundamental national value.
We must make the commitment to invest in the education and professional development of those who are willing to dedicate their time and energy in service to their neighbors and the Nation. Developing the talents of our most committed citizens pays lifelong dividends. Our investment in the G.I. Bill not only honors our servicemembers but also enriches our Nation. Similarly, the education awards for those who have served through our national service programs have economic impacts beyond the individuals who earn them. That is the new deal that the ACTION for National Service Act offers.
All AmeriCorps members take a pledge to get things done for Americans, to make communities safer, smarter, and healthier, and to bring us together. It is a pledge we all should commit ourselves to.
I would like to thank the cosponsors of the ACTION for National Service Act and the over 40 organizations, including Voices for National Service, America's Service Commissions, States for Service Coalition, the Corps Network, National AmeriCorps Seniors Association, Service Year Alliance, City Year, and Campus Compact, that have endorsed this legislation. We urge our
Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly, if I may, on another subject.
During the war in Gaza, more than 20,000 children have been killed so far. There have been thousands of atrocities in Gaza. Over 70,000 have died, and even more have been gravely injured.
The Israelis' own data shows that the overwhelming majority of the people killed by Israeli forces have been civilians, and it is, regrettably, the highest proportion of civilians to combatants killed in any contemporary conflict.
Today, I want to speak about one such case, the killing of Hind Rajab. Hind was the beautiful 5-year-old child whose photograph you see here next to me. ``Hind,'' by the way means ``hope.''
Hind's death is the subject of a film that has been nominated for an Academy Award on Sunday. The film follows the killing of Hind, the killing of her four cousins, her aunt, her uncle, and two paramedics who were sent to rescue her. It does feature a recording of Hind's voice pleading for help that never arrives.
It is a virtual certainty that the weapons and ammunition provided by American taxpayer dollars were used in this crime. We know this based on forensic investigation of her family's car, where 335 bullet holes were counted.
Despite requests from the Biden State Department, Israel has produced no evidence that it has held anyone accountable for this atrocity. That is why today I am introducing the Justice for Hind Rajab Act, along with my colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Sara Jacobs of California.
Our bill raises a simple question. Something must be done about this crime. The U.S. Government must--must--do its part to hold those responsible accountable as some small measure of justice for the thousands of children who have been killed in this war and that continues to this day.
Mr. President, I have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.
Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:
The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in open and closed session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 11:30 a.m.
The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 10 a.m., to conduct a nomination hearing.
The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, March 12, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 642) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
(The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, March 16; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of Executive Calendar No. 673; finally, that the cloture motion with respect to the St. John nomination ripen at 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
